Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o"clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Arts (North Yorkshire)

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: What steps he is taking to widen access to the arts in (a) North Yorkshire and (b) Scarborough and Whitby. [149384]

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Yorkshire Arts is strongly committed to widening access to the arts. Its budget from the Arts Council of England increased by 9.1 per cent. in 1999–2000 and in 2000–01 by 26 per cent., to £9.25 million. Among the excellent projects that are promoting wider access is Create, an arts development consortium working in partnership with Yorkshire Arts to promote residencies and participatory events at the Scarborough festival and, indeed, all the year round. That also benefits Whitby and rural areas in North Yorkshire.

Mr. Quinn: Such initiatives are extremely welcome in what are perhaps some of the moss rural parts of the country. In the rural areas of North Yorkshire in particular, participation in the arts is difficult, whether in the performance arts or in other forms. I am especially pleased that many of the council estates in Scarborough and Whitby now have an opportunity to take part. This initiative from the Government is smashing and will make sure that we break down the barriers of exclusion in access to the arts. Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to commend all the people at Yorkshire Arts for that important work?

Mr. Howarth: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend"s comments. He is a great advocate of tourism and culture in his constituency and in Yorkshire. He and his constituents are fortunate of course to have Sir Alan Ayckbourn and the Stephen Joseph theatre in their midst. That theatre has been a priority for Yorkshire Arts.
Yorkshire Arts supports both the Crescent arts workshop—working to bring cultural opportunities to deprived estates in Scarborough—and the Whitby network, which provides a performance base in Whitby.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister confirm that the restriction of school budgets in North Yorkshire poses tremendous difficulties for schools such as Thirsk school where, traditionally, pupils were bussed to venues in North Yorkshire and in Leeds so that they could experience arts to which their parents were unable to take them? Will the Minister speak to the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that the budgets are increased so that the trips continue to take place in future?

Mr. Howarth: We work closely with our colleagues in the DFEE. Education is of course a priority for my Department; a commitment to education is written into our funding agreements with the Arts Council and in the Arts Council"s agreements with the regional arts boards. I hope that the hon. Lady will be pleased that North Yorkshire, which has 14 per cent. of the population of Yorkshire, receives 20 per cent. of the budget of Yorkshire Arts. Of that, a significant amount is committed to work with educational organisations—schools and other organisations—to ensure that culture and education reinforce each other, as she and I would both wish.

Heritage (Calderdale)

Mrs. Alice Mahon: What steps he is taking to support heritage initiatives in Calderdale. [149385]

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): I was delighted to visit Calderdale last September, at the invitation of my hon. Friend, and to see for myself the exceptional regeneration project at Dean Clough. We must all admire what Sir Ernest Hall has achieved there. I also saw the restoration work on the 1855 station building and the Piece hall. The Government are committed to supporting the restoration of historic buildings for present-day use and I congratulate Calderdale on its success in attracting funding to preserve the best of the past.

Mrs. Mahon: I thank my right hon. Friend for the generous help that we have been given in the past. Does he agree that when an area such as Calderdale has a wealth of heritage, a regional strategy is a good way forward? Can we get the heritage lottery fund to speed up its grants? I am thinking, in particular, of the magnificent 15th century Shibden hall, which is falling into disrepair. It would be a tragedy if that continued.

Mr. Howarth: Halifax and Calderdale have a most remarkable built heritage but, as my hon. Friend says, that provides a huge challenge for a relatively small local authority. My hon. Friend understands that heritage; she loves and champions it, exactly as a Member of Parliament should. In recent years, English Heritage and the heritage lottery fund have given considerable sums—more than £5 million each—to Halifax. I hope that they will continue to respond to my hon. Friend"s advocacy.
I note my hon. Friend"s comments about the great importance of Shibden hall and, indeed, of the park. She is right that we need to take a regional approach. That is exactly why we have established the regional cultural consortiums.

Library Services

Mr. Paul Goggins: If he will make a statement on the level of investment in new books made by local authority library services in each of the past four years. [149388]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Library authority expenditure on books was £74.2 million in 1997–98, £75 million in 1998–99 and £79 million in 1999–2000 a 5.3 per cent. increase on the previous year. For 2000–01, it is estimated that expenditure on books will have risen to £79.5 million—a further 0.6 per cent. increase on last year.

Mr. Goggins: I assure my right. hon. Friend that those improvements are reflected in my constituency, where Trafford and Manchester councils are investing in new books and new facilities. What action is he taking to encourage libraries to work with schools and colleges to extend the joy of reading those new books to the 7 million or so adults in our country who still cannot read any better than an average 11-year-old?

Mr. Smith: Libraries are, of course, important for the whole population, including young people and students. The use of libraries is extremely prevalent; about 10 million people visit their public libraries every fortnight. It is important that libraries, which are primarily run by local authorities, invest properly in their facilities and in their book funds, and make them available to their populations. Trafford is a good example of a council that has done precisely that. For the first time ever, we have instituted library standards, which we published on 12 February. Those standards put in place targets for library authorities in matters such as opening hours, library location and book purchasing, which will ensure that library facilities become increasingly available in the next three years.

Mr. James Gray: The Secretary of State talks in rosy terms, as he always does, about the increase in spending on libraries and in reading and so on under the Labour Government. That would be wonderful if it were the case for all local authorities. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many authorities such as Wiltshire county council—the sixth worst funded county in England—cannot afford social services, or to educate children or mend the roads? I fear that under those conditions, it certainly cannot afford to increase spending on libraries. If the right hon. Gentleman is so keen to increase spending on libraries, will he make a specific grant available to increase the number of new books in counties such as Wiltshire?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman implies that libraries should take second place to other council services. I remind him that libraries are a statutory service under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 and that they are vital to the education of the whole population. Local authorities ought to pay attention to library services. The environmental, protective and cultural services block of

the revenue support grant settlement, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister recently put in place, has been increased by 4.3 per cent.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to intervene if local authorities propose drastic closures, as is the case in Plymouth, where Trelawny library, Combe Dean library, Lipson community college library and the mobile library service all face cuts under cur irresponsible Conservative council, which nevertheless finds it possible to axe parking charges for people who do not even live in our city?

Mr. Smith: I am indeed prepared to intervene where unwarranted cuts are threatened in library services, and we have done so on several occasions. I am pleased to say that when we have intervened in recent years, library authorities have either withdrawn or cancelled plans to close libraries and reduce services. That seems to be prevalent in Tory authorities. For example, Tory-controlled Kensington and Chelsea council recently proposed to close Notting Hill library; one of only six libraries in the entire borough. There was a lot of local unhappiness and we were contacted by many local residents. As a result of my chief library adviser"s contacting the authority on two occasions, I am pleased to say that even the Tory party in Kensington and Chelsea has withdrawn its proposals.

World Cup (Television Rights)

Mr. John Grogan: What correspondence he has had with Kirch sport regarding television coverage of the 2002 and 2006 football World cup finals. [149389]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I wrote to Dr. Dieter Hahn, the managing director of Kirch Holding, on 29 January in response to his letter to me of 20 December. Dr. Hahn acknowledged my reply on 5 February. A meeting with officials has been arranged for 7 March. I am determined that all viewers in the United Kingdom, including those who do not have subscription television, should be able to watch live all games in the World cup finals and not just those involving the home country teams.

Mr. Grogan: Will my right hon. Friend give me the further assurance that if this Anglo-German contest between the will of Parliament—which first made the World cup finals a listed event as long ago as 1985—and the German media company Kirch goes into extra time and penalties at the European Court, he will make strong representations to both the court and to the Commission in defence of the United Kingdom"s listed events? As he said, the list stipulates that every match in the World cup finals should be made available live and at a fair price to free to air terrestrial television.

Mr. Smith: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. When live rights are made available, they must be made available to all. That is part of the provisions of the listed events that have been put in place. We have made that view very clear, and we shall stick strongly to it.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Secretary of State recognise that one of the most important points


about keeping major international sporting events on free to air television is the fact that youngsters from less well off backgrounds should have access to the highest quality sport? Does he agree that it is essential to preserve the concept of the listed events as set out in the Broadcasting Act 1996 which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government?

Mr. Smith: It is central to our policy for the protection of viewers and for the long term interests of sport to ensure that the provisions for listed events remain in force. We inherited excellent legislation on this matter from the previous Government and we increased the number of events on the list following the review that we conducted shortly after we came into government. The legislation is an example of good cross-party work on an essential matter that is important to all television viewers and to all sports enthusiasts in this country.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the provisions for the World cup in 2002? Given the 12 hour time difference between here and Korea and Japan, many of the games will be shown live at 3 o"clock in the morning in this country. I do not quite see the logic of anyone having the rights to broadcast the games live it 3 o"clock in the morning because what really matters is when the games are first shown. In 2002, the first showing of matches—and not necessarily their live broadcasting—will be the key issue.

Mr. Smith: These are, of course, separate issues. Live events are important and despite the late hour at which some Olympic events were shown, they still attracted substantial interest. We should also remember that many people have video recorders and will want to record the live games so that they can watch them at the first opportunity available to them.

Mr. John Greenway: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in paying tribute to the late Sir Donald Bradman who was undoubtedly one of the greatest cricketers whom the world will ever see?
On the World cup, we entirely sup Sort the Secretary of State"s campaign to retain the concept of listed events. It was the result of the settled will of Parliament and such an approach has cross-party support. It is right to defend the concept in this case because of all the other listed events. If the concept of listed events goes in this instance, what else will be lost?
Has the right hon. Gentleman spoken to FIFA? Surely it recognises that it must be in the interests of sponsors and the future of football that as many people as possible are able to watch the matches. Is there not a must-transmit clause in the contract with Kirch? Should pressure be put on BSkyB not to seek exclusive rights to the matches, because that would not be in the interests of football? Sky has done wonderfully well out of football and it must also be in its interests that as many people as possible watch the World cup so that they will watch other football matches in the future.

Mr. Smith: I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Sir Don Bradman, who was one of the greatest cricketers, if not the greatest, that we have seen for many years. His loss is deeply felt by many people.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general remarks about broadcasting. FIFA requires that the opening match, the semi-finals and the final, as well as matches involving the national team of any one country, should be shown on free to air television. That is included in the FIFA sale of rights. However, FIFA does not go beyond that, but our listed events requirement does because it includes matches other than home country matches. In the previous World cup, viewing figures for some games that did not involve England or Scotland were remarkably high; Jamaica-Croatia, Brazil-Chile and Nigeria-Denmark each had more than 10 million viewers. These events are important to many millions of viewers in this country, and we shall ensure that we stand by the will of Parliament on this matter.

National Collections (Access)

Mr. Gordon Prentice: How many items from the national collections are on loan to private sector organisations; and how many of them cannot be viewed by members of the general public. [149390]

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Inquiries to the national museums and galleries show that 1,202 items are on loan to private sector organisations, including privately funded art galleries. It is estimated that, of those items, 86 per cent. are available to public view.

Mr. Prentice: My calculation is that 14 per cent. of items from the national collection are not available for the general public to view, which is unfortunate. At any given time, the public can see only 15 per cent. of the Tate"s collection, only 18 per cent. of the national collection in the national portrait gallery and less than 5 per cent. of the science museum"s collection. Why is it not possible to show items from our national collections in public spaces such as airport and railway concourses, with proper protection, and introduce our citizens to the glories of those collections?

Mr. Howarth: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. Works of art are regularly lent and borrowed within this country and throughout the world. That is the only basis on which we in Britain have the opportunity to see wonderful special exhibitions of international importance.
As my hon. Friend says, a significant proportion of items in the national collections are not on display at any given time, and it is highly desirable that more people should have the opportunity to see them. That is why I am very encouraged by the network of relations that the Tate gallery has developed with regional galleries, which will enable more people in the regions to see items from its collection. The science museum will be able to display much more of its collection on the new site at Wroughton, near Swindon. We supported the museum in obtaining that site. Lord Evans, the chairman of Resource, fully sympathises with my hon. Friend"s views and is considering the matter as part of his review of regional museums and galleries.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I wholly endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). It is well known that despite the enlightened trusteeship


of the national gallery and the national portrait gallery, the lending of pictures in this country is niggardly. While we all welcome the opportunity for some great pictures to be lent to other galleries, the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that many other spaces could be provided for their display so that a much broader section of the general public would have a chance to see them, to their great advantage.

Mr. Howarth: I would not agree that the lending policies of the institutions are niggardly. As I have said, if we were not prepared to exchange items, we would not have the exhibitions that we do. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that much more can be done, and we are keen to encourage that.

Mrs. Ann Cryer: As the national museums and galleries are unable to display their entire collections, does my right hon. Friend agree that, instead of lending out items to private organisations, it would be fairer and better if they followed the example of the science museum, which has links with the national railway museum, York and the national museum of photography, film and television in Bradford? Both those museums are extremely popular and enable people from the north to see those wonderful collections.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the remarkable quality of those collections in York and Bradford. As I have said, we are keen that more of our national collections should be available to a larger number of people in all parts of the country. I fully agree with her.

Schoolchildren (Creative Activities)

Mr. Simon Hughes: Pursuant to his oral answer of 11 December 2000, Official Report, column 334, when he will be able to announce further initiatives for encouraging sport and artistic talent among schoolchildren. [149391]

The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): We announced last month our intention to offer children an entitlement of two hours a week of high-quality school sport and physical education. Earlier this month, the appointment of a further 55 school sport co-ordinators in 12 new areas were announced, including in the London borough of Southwark, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the location of 16 areas for the new creative partnerships. The London borough of Southwark—in which, of course, the hon. Gentleman"s constituency lies—was again one of the areas chosen.

Mr. Hughes: Obviously I am grateful to the Minister for those initiatives and the Government"s interest. Today, we will debate criminal justice measures to deal with young people, many of whom go off the rails during their school years. Does the Minister agree that one of the best things that we could do to ensure that they stay on the straight and narrow and become good—rather than troublesome—citizens would be to give them opportunities to get involved in an activity that they want to pursue and which motivates them? Will she talk to her colleagues at the DFEE and the Home Office to see whether every youngster who leaves primary and

secondary school can be given the chance of finding out what he or she would like to do and provided with the chance of doing it? That would enable youngsters to box, swim, sail, dance or get involved in drama instead of hanging around on street corners and getting into trouble.

Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is right about the motivation that sport gives to young people. Clearly, that is happening in schools. However, he is talking about young people who are alienated from school, perhaps through truancy. Many such youngsters are in our constituencies and they are precisely the people whom the school sport co-ordinators try to influence through their outreach work. More importantly, we are using some of the money for young offenders to put in hand work with the Home Office. Some of the young people who concern us are not yet offenders, but we need to get access to them before they are. I take the hon. Gentleman"s point, and we will be working closely with the Home Office and the DFEE on that matter.

Mr. Phil Hope: My hon. Friend will know that the quality of pitches is one barrier to participation in football that young people experience locally. Grassroots football cannot take off if pitches are flooded, fences are broken or pavilions are in disrepair. I recently chaired a meeting of football club representatives in my constituency. They want investment in pitches to get young people playing football and to raise talent at the highest level. The difficulty is the lack of resources. The Football Foundation provides some resources, but will the Government work with it to ensure that cash is available year on year to support and help grassroots football, so that we can get young people back into sport?

Kate Hoey: The Football Foundation will make a significant difference to grassroots football, particularly to the facilities that many of our young—and older—people have to use for weekend matches. It has £18 million in the first year to invest in grassroots football. The working group that will make the decisions will be closely involved with county football associations, local authorities and schools. Change will not happen overnight, but the investment, coupled with the money that is being provided through the space for sport and the arts programme and the improvement in school sports facilities, will mane a long term difference to the opportunities that our young people have to play not just football, but other sports as well.

South East Arts (Administration)

Mr. Crispin Blunt: What proportion of the South East Arts budget for 2000–01 is spent on administration. [149392]

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): The actual figures for 2000–01 will not be available until the audited accounts arc released later this year. I understand that the forecast figure for operating costs is £1.642 million out of a total expenditure of £7.21 million. Operating costs are therefore estimated at 23 per cent. of the South East Arts budget for the year.

Mr. Blunt: Does the Minister appreciate that, between 1999 and 2000, there was a 30 per cent. increase in


administration costs—representing a doubling of the 2000 figure—and that a 25 per cent. administration charge by a major charity would be of significant concern? Given that the treasurer of the local music society writes to me to report that it takes up to two years to get a grant of £500 or £1,000, that the grant application form is a major piece of creative writing and that it Counts only if he has had discussions with the bureaucrats at South East Arts before its completion, there is some evidence for his conclusions that South East Arts is
self-serving, intolerably wasteful and inefficient".
Will the Minister inquire into the administration of South East Arts?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is very disparaging about South East Arts, but it does a very great deal of very useful work. Of course the figure for administrative costs is much too high. We are working to bring it down, principally by increasing grant in aid to South East Arts. That provision was so niggardly under the previous Government that spending on administration was inevitably a very high proportion of South East Arts total budget. We increased its grant by 16.7 per cent. last year, and have done so by 31 per cent. in the present year. The Arts Council is reducing the number of special programmes that carry high administrative costs. We are setting targets for the reduction of administrative costs and we have asked the quality and efficiency standards team—QUEST—to offer advice.
I should add that the task of South East Arts has been made significantly harder as a result of the hon. Gentleman"s local authority—Reigate and Banstead borough council—last year withdrawing its contribution to South East Arts and its support for the arts development officer in his area, which South East Arts co-funded. Support for the arts must be a partner ship between central and local government. If the hon. Gentleman"s borough council refuses to play its part, heavier administrative and financing costs inevitably fall on South East Arts. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) should be concerned, because his constituency covers that council, too. Is he happy that Conservative-controlled local authorities should behave in such a way?

Recreational Shooting

Mr. Edward Leigh: If he will make a statement on his policy on recreational shooting. [149394]

The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): The Government strongly support the sport of shooting which, as with other sports, can help with character building and the development of interpersonal skills and personal discipline.

Mr. Leigh: I am very glad to hear the Minister"s ringing endorsement; she, of course, has a fine record on such subjects, particularly hunting. She must be aware that the League Against Cruel Sports—I have seen literature from it—has recreational shooting firmly in its sights, believing that it is a cruel sport and that it is wrong that game should be artificially bred We have heard such false arguments applied to hunting Will the hon. Lady give a commitment that under no circumstances will the

Government whom she represents introduce any Bill that could be used as a vehicle, under a so-called free vote, to put at risk recreational shooting, as hunting is at the present time?

Kate Hoey: As Minister for Sport for this Government, I certainly give that commitment.

Mr. Denis MacShane: My eyesight is now too bad to allow me to be let loose with a gun, but in my youth I went rough shooting and recreational shooting. Many of my constituents enjoy the sport. I should like to reaffirm from the Labour Benches the view that hunting with guns—recreational shooting—is part of our countryside tradition, and that the Labour party remains firmly committed to it.

Kate Hoey: I absolutely agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. We are very successful at the sport. I had the privilege of seeing Richard Faulds win the Olympic gold medal in the double trap event. Ian Peel won the silver medal at the Paralympics; people with disabilities can take part in the sport on an equal footing. I also saw Isabel Newstead win a gold medal and Deanna Coates win a bronze. We want to support the sport and see continued success in it.

National Athletics Centre, Picketts Lock

Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on progress in establishing a national athletics facility at Picketts Lock. [149395]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The project team is making good progress to develop the new Lee Valley national athletics centre. The design team is producing outline plans for the stadium and associated facilities, and technical studies are at an advanced stage. The project team expects to be able to submit a full planning application by the end of May.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for that information, but will the Secretary of State confirm that no design has yet been accepted and that the project is therefore not really up and running? Will he assure the House that, however great the current delays, facilities will be available for the world athletics championships in 2005, which means that they must be completed by the preceding year?

Mr. Smith: Design work is under way and I have every confidence that the stadium will be in place, up and running and of a world-class nature ready for the world athletics championships in 2005.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Few people share the Secretary of State"s confidence. Questions about Picketts Lock arise directly from his ill-informed and wrong-headed decision to kick athletics out of Wembley. If Wembley with planning permission and a detailed design is not to be ready until 2004, what are the chances that Picketts Lock will be ready by 2005? What are the chances of London hosting the world athletics championships if there is nowhere for them to be held? What are the chances of a successful bid for the Olympic games in 2012 if there is no


Olympic stadium? To each question, the answer is the same: about as good as the chances of the Secretary of State keeping his job after May.

Mr. Smith: If we had not taken athletics out of Wembley in December 1999, we would now face the prospect of having to abandon any hope of hosting the world athletics championships. It is because we took that decision—the right decision—to take athletics out of Wembley and to begin work on the Picketts Lock site in the Lee valley that we now have the opportunity to host the championships. Dave Moorcroft, chief executive of UK Athletics, said recently:
It was right to revisit Wembley one more time but Picketts Lock was always our first choice…It really is the number one choice for a national athletics centre as it will create a dedicated, purpose built stadium, high performance centre, throwing field and warm up track.
That is what we shall provide at the Lee valley stadium, and it is about time the Tories put their voices behind that national project and stopped their ill-informed carping and criticism.

Millennium Dome

Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the future of the millennium dome. [149396]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): On 15 February, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Government had terminated the existing competition. Although Legacy plc made progress towards meeting the preferred bidder terms, it did not meet them and its exclusivity therefore expired. The Government have now asked English Partnerships to invite any interested parties to lodge expressions of interest for the dome and the regeneration of the peninsula.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for that answer, even though it was an essay in complacency. Given that Lord Falconer said on "Newsnight" on 15 February that the point might come at which he felt that he had to resign and that he has handled the running of the dome appallingly, botched two bids for it, faced calls from almost every national newspaper to quit his post and arrogantly refused to apologise for what everyone now sees is a national scandal, why does the noble Lord not have the decency, the dignity and the sense of responsibility to resign his office forthwith?

Janet Anderson: I very much resent the hon. Gentleman"s attempts to make cheap party political points. My noble Friend Lord Falconer has conducted an extremely difficult exercise with great skill and judgment. As for the latest position, I remind the hon. Gentleman of a comment made by one of his hon. Friends:
The Government should end the talks with Legacy and reopen the competition and try to get real value out of the site.
That comment by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) was quoted in the Financial Times of 12 January.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The resignation of Lord Falconer is a matter not of party politics, but of national and public probity. Having bungled two attempts

to sell the dome, the Government are now in the process of bungling the third; it is a story of mind-blowing incompetence. Will the Minister confirm that, however many 8 ft hamsters the Government sell, the dome will continue to consume more than £3 million a month for the foreseeable future? What is the real cost to the public of insisting that the dome remains on site? If it is not £300 million, will the Government kindly show us the proof?
If the dome is to remain in place, why on earth are the Government pulling; the contents out before they know who will buy it? I apologise for not attempting the accent but, in the words of P-Y Gerbeau:
I think that, for the money that"s been spent, the British public deserve something bettor.
Indeed, they do; they deserve a better Government.

Janet Anderson: May I deal, first, with the auction, which will take place from tomorrow? As the Government have always said, nothing will be done that would prejudice future uses of the dome, including the option of a new leisure attraction. The Government have no plans to subsidise the operation of the dome.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned running costs. The current monthly running costs of the New Millennium Experience Company are between £2.5 million and £3.5 million, excluding physical decommissioning costs. It is intended that monthly running costs will reduce as the company moves towards solvent liquidation. Following decommissioning we estimate that the running costs of the dome will be £500,000 a month.
In line with the advice of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who said that the competition with Legacy should be ended and that a new competition should be opened, we will soon announce details of that and are determined to get value for money. However, the Government are also determined that the dome should stay on site, as it is recognised as an icon around the world. It is the most successful tourist attraction in this country, and attracted 6.5 million visitors in the course of a year. We are determined to get the best deal in future.

Mr. Ainsworth: In the context of the dome, the words "value for money" ale, frankly, laughable. As the future of the dome is inevitably mired in past and present controversies, will the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that at no time did Mr. Alastair Campbell solicit sponsorship money from commercial companies?

Janet Anderson: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. While we are on the subject, may I remind him that the dome has been a major catalyst for regeneration activity on the peninsula, which less than a decade ago was one of the most derelict sites in England? The first residents have moved into the millennium village, an exciting new venture of mixed housing. A new primary school has just opened and will soon be followed by brand new health centres, a state-of-the-art cinema and major retail outlets. The Government are convinced that that would not have happened without the dome acting as a catalyst for regeneration.

Ryder Cup

Mr. Huw Edwards: What discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales about the hosting of the Ryder cup in 2009. [149398]

The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of state have discussed the Welsh bid with the National Assembly. The sports cabinet discussed the need for co- ordinating bids for major events at its recent meetings.

Mr. Edwards: I was delighted to attend the launch of the 2009 Ryder cup bid to be held, I hope, at the Celtic Manor hotel in the beautiful Usk valley, near my constituency. I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Tony Lewis, the chairman of the Welsh bid. Does my hon. Friend agree that bringing the Ryder cup to Wales would be a tremendous boost for golf and for Wales? Will she join me in commending Mr. Terry Matthews for all the investment that he has made in the business and sporting life of south-east Wales?

Kate Hoey: My overall aim is to bring the Ryder cup to the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend has been involved with the Welsh bid and has done a neat deal to support it. There is also a Scottish bid and a bid from north-east England, so there are three UK bids. All those bids are commendable and are worth considering. At the end of the day, we will have the UK bids and one eventual winner. Co-ordination is important to ensure that different parts of the United Kingdom do not compete against one another. However, the Ryder cup is specifically not a governing body-led event; it is led by an organising team. I wish all the bids great success.

Children"s Sport

Caroline Flint: What plans he has to implement his policy of ensuring that all children take part in sport every week. [149400]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The teaching of physical education in the national curriculum is statutory at key stages 1 to 4—for ages five to 16. On 11 January 2001 we set out our intention to offer children an entitlement to two hours a week of high-quality sport and physical education both within and outside the school day. We will consult schools, professional associations and all other interested parties to identify how best to make this happen and how to monitor it.

Caroline Flint: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but I should like to raise two issues, the first of which is the sometimes erratic way in which schools organise inter-school tournaments. The organising of such fixtures is lacking, and Ofsted should look into that. My right hon. Friend should ensure that it is a condition of good Ofsted reports that inter-school competition is very much a feature of sport activity.
The second issue is transport, problems with which often prevent children from taking part in after-school or weekend activities. It is a disadvantage for schools if they have to raise money and use the bulk of their sports budget on transport.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes two extremely important and valid points. We are in discussion with Ofsted about inter-school competition. Children"s sport and sporting opportunities are key parts of their development. In many parts of the country, the provision of inter-school competition is not only erratic in far too many areas, it is non-existent. Under the stewardship of the Tory Government, there was a massive decline in inter-school sport. We are rectifying that, and the appointment of 1,000 school sports co-ordinators throughout the country to encourage and facilitate inter-school competitive sport is one of the ways in which we are doing so.

Dr. Julian Lewis: It is nice that the Government believe in some degree of competitiveness in schools, albeit only on the non-academic side. The Secretary of State says that the Government intend that pupils should have up to two hours of sport a week, but it is not clear what part of that will be within the school working day. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least give an undertaking that 50 per cent. of that time will be within the school working day? Otherwise, was that not a typical meaningless Government announcement?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. We believe fundamentally that competitive sport is excellent for children. It teaches children a great deal about how to win and lose, how to live their lives and how to work in teams. It prepares them for citizenship. Competitive sport is good as a sports policy and as an education policy.
Provision should be in school, after school and at weekends; good-quality school sport has always been about that. We want to see sport covered in the in-school curriculum and in after-school work.

Gillian Merron: Will my right hon. Friend commend the running of football in the community schemes for children? They are organised by clubs such as Lincoln City FC, which is to be congratulated on having become the first community owned and run football club in the country. Will he ensure that his Department and Supporters Direct, both of which have been extremely helpful in giving critical support to Lincoln City FC, put the involvement of children at the heart of their work in cementing the relationship between football and the community?

Mr. Smith: We warmly commend the work that Lincoln City has been doing in that respect. I congratulate the supporters trust, which has taken over the ownership of Lincoln City football club. I am pleased that we put Supporters Direct in place nearly a year ago. It has been working hard with supporters trusts around the country to assist groups of supporters in local areas to take a stake in the equity of their clubs. Lincoln City is an excellent


example of that work coming to fruition. I commend the club and the policy of community ownership that that represents.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I agree with the Secretary of State about the importance of out-of-hours opportunities for sport and for the arts. What discussions has he had with his colleagues and with teachers about possible bottlenecks resulting from the fact that teachers may not be eager to undertake such work without additional resources?

Mr. Smith: We have been in close discussion with the Department for Education and Employment and teachers. Because of the current difficulties facing teachers, we are putting in place school sports co-ordinators and extending the provisions of the new deal to enable sports assistants to be created in schools. We realise that teachers cannot do the work all on their own. They need support, help and assistance with co-ordination, which school sports co-ordinators will provide.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Church Repairs

Miss Anne McIntosh: What he expects the timetable will be for the reduction of VAT on church repairs; and if he will make a statement. [149414]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Government are continuing their discussions with the European Commission in relation to a reduced VAT rate for repairs to listed places of worship. A preliminary reply indicated that the matter would be considered by the Commission in its general review of reduced rates, which will take place in 2003. I am encouraged to note that, in the interim, the Government are considering special arrangements to help congregations to pay for repairs to listed places of worship.

Miss McIntosh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Commission has ruled the application to be illegal under the treaty and as a result of a decision taken by Finance Ministers, which can be overruled only by a unanimous decision? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it may be possible to submit an alternative application proposing that churches should be considered as historic buildings rather than dwellings, which is the current rule? Would that bring forward the timetable set out by the hon. Gentleman, so that a decision could be taken before 2003?

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who was a Member of the European Parliament and therefore understands these matters. I am not aware that the Commission ruled any discussion with Her Majesty"s Government illegal. It decided that there ought to be a proper review of VAT rates and reduced rates in relation to annexe K, of which the hon. Lady is well aware. The VAT group of the Church is discussing the matter with Customs and Excise. I refer the hon. Lady and the House

to press speculation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be generous towards VAT on church repairs in his forthcoming Budget.

Mr. Andrew Reed: It is pity that the rate was raised from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent., which has put us in the present difficult position. Does my hon. Friend agree that for small congregations with very old churches that require a great deal of work—my own in Cossington, for,example, requires expenditure of £400,000 and has a congregation of 30 or 40—the rate of 17.5 per cent. will have made an enormous difference to the amount of work that can be done to repair those historic buildings, which are vital not just to the congregation but to the small communities that use them during the rest of the week?

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We should remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the first Chancellor in 25 years who has agreed to reduce the rate of VAT from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the sudden rise in the rate to 17.5 per cent. in 1979 created a severe distortion in VAT on church repairs and has been an impediment to the repair of my hon. Friend"s church.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Chancellor excited expectations that he now has a moral duty to fulfil? Will he convey from both sides of the House the message that we expect an announcement on 7 March?

Mr. Bell: I am not entirely sure how my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would respond if I told him what he should include in his Budget, but we can hope and pray. The hon. Gentleman has been in the forefront of those who have asked for a reduction in VAT on church repairs in the past 20 years. I ask him and the House to read carefully the words used by my right hon. Friend in the announcement. He said clearly that the matter had to go to the European Commission and that discussions would follow. The Government have never suggested that the matter would be one of expediency. I will convey to my right hon. Friend the feeling throughout the House that a measure should be taken to balance the disequilibrium and chat a substantial effort is needed to help churches by reducing VAT on church repairs.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: How many Church of England churches there are in England; how many and what percentage of them require repairs to the roof, tower or steeple to keep them dry and structurally sound; and what steps the Church Commissioners are taking to help impoverished congregations finance the repair work. [149415]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): There are some 16,000 Anglican parish churches in England, 13,000 of which are listed. The Church holds no statistics on the number of buildings needing high-level repairs or work of a more general nature. The total repair cost to Church of England parishes in 1998 was about £123 million, with VAT accounting for at least £18 million.

Mr. Prentice: I am disappointed that there are no statistics on the number of churches that require major


repairs, especially in the light of the information provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) about the £400,000 cost of repairing his local church. I am unsure of the mechanism that the Church Commissioners use to distribute cash to the localities, but may I make a practical suggestion? Would it not be fair and equitable for them to use the index of deprivation, which extends down to ward level, in determining how much money goes to each diocese in the country?

Mr. Bell: I should point out to my hon. Friend that the Church Commissioners have no general power to assist with the repair and maintenance of churches. The costs are borne by individual parishes, upon whose energy and commitment the preservation of this important part of the nation"s built heritage depends. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the Churches Conservation Trust exists to preserve church buildings that are of exceptional quality, but which are no longer in parish use. The body is jointly funded; 70 per cent. a its funding is provided by the state and 30 per cent. by the Commissioners. We have £12.6 million in that budget for the next three years.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Second Church Estates Commissioner confirm that the Church Commissioners make a significant contribution to the 16,000 parishes through help with clergy stipends and pensions? As so many of the churches are part of our glorious English architectural heritage, does he further accept that it is incumbent on the stale not only to limit—if not abolish—tax charged on repair, to church roofs, but to be generous with grants? On any score, but especially that of built heritage, these buildings are worthy of protection and financial help.

Mr. Bell: Some £10 million is given each year in state aid by English Heritage and a further £10 million is provided from the heritage lottery fund. That is a small amount compared with the huge repair bills faced by the Church, and, of course, it is offset by VAT on church repairs, which wipes that out. We must understand and

accept that the churches throughout our land are part of our rich heritage and our nation"s culture, and deserve greater state aid than they are getting.

Mr. Edward Leigh: What recent representations he has received from churches on the level of VAT on church repairs. [149416]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Parishes and dioceses of the Church of England have submitted substantial evidence underlining the burden borne by them in VAT costs on repairs to listed and non-listed church buildings. I know that the Church of England VAT group and others continue to work towards the hoped for reduction in VAT.

Mr. Leigh: Up and down the country, the hopes of congregations were raised by the announcement that VAT might be reduced, but a European Commission announcement is now setting matters back to 2003. Will the hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor please make the strongest possible representations to the European Commission that this is one area where it should get its sticky fingers out of the nooks and crannies of our crumbling heritage? We are talking about our culture and history and our churches and congregations—a matter not for the European Union, but for this House.

Mr. Bell: After such a sterling speech, I hesitate to remind the hon. Gentleman that a Conservative Government got us into the EU in the first place. However, setting aside that partisan point, I hope that the Chancellor hears the hon. Gentleman"s comments. We seek grant in aid from the Chancellor to compensate our churches while the Commission, with help from our Customs and Excise, Members of Parliament and the Government, consider and unpick a delicate matter.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will my hon. Friend discount any representations that he receives on VAT on church repairs or anything else from Tories, especially former Tory Ministers? Not only were they responsible for rocketing VAT but they imposed a stealth tax on our churches.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his assistance. We try to be bipartisan on Church matters. However, as the Leader of the Opposition has announced a general election on 5 April, that may be too much to ask.

Criminal Justice

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Command Paper "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead", copies of which are available in the Vote Office, together with the criminal justice system business plan for 2001–02. Both are published today.
Throughout their period of office, the Government have been determined to tackle crime and the causes of crime, and to build a fair, effective and swift criminal justice system, which commands the full support and confidence of victims and the public.
Reducing crime carries wider responsibilities than those of the criminal justice system alone. The Government have invested in a range of cross-cutting programmes, which tackle the underlying causes of crime. They include sure start for pre-school children, the new Connexions programme, the children"s fund, the welfare-to-work programme and the new national treatment agency, which deals with drug abuse. The programmes are a key element in our approach to crime reduction, but they must go hand in hand with changes in the criminal justice system. I am pleased that profound improvement is already under way.
Following an inquiry under Sir Iain Glidewell, the Crown Prosecution Service has been restructured in line with police force boundaries, and a local chief crown prosecutor is now in place for each area. Criminal justice units, which are responsible for processing cases to court, and are now collocated with the police, are being trebled.
The youth justice system is being transformed. The national Youth Justice Board and a network of local youth offending teams are co-ordinating effort against youth crime as never before. Repeat cautioning of juveniles has ended. Graduated court sanctions are helping to ensure that young offenders, and their parents, take greater responsibility for their behaviour, and allow for the active involvement of victims in the process.
From April, for the first time, police, probation, CPS and magistrates will operate in the same, coterminous boundaries. Statutory partnerships between the police, local councils, the health service and voluntary organisations have been established across the country to ensure that everyone works together effectively to reduce crime and disorder. Those partnerships benefit from significant investment under a three-year crime reduction programme, including the biggest ever expansion of closed circuit television, to help drive crime down locally. New antisocial behaviour orders have removed a climate of fear and intimidation from many neighbourhoods, while more than 1,100 successful prosecutions have taken place for new offences of racial violence and racial harassment.
The system for community punishments is being reformed to ensure better enforcement by a new national probation service. The Prison Service is investing large sums in drug prevention, accredited offending behaviour programmes, better education and training, and an extra 2,660 prison places.
The strategy is bearing fruit. Against demographic projections that crime would rise between 1997 and the end of 1999, the British crime survey shows that overall crime fell by 10 per cent. in that period, with reductions

of 4 per cent. for violent crime, 15 per cent. for vehicle crime and 21 per cent. for domestic burglary. Since 1997, overall recorded crime has fallen 7 per cent. to a total of about 5.2 million offences, with reductions of 28 per cent. for domestic burglary and 20 per cent. for vehicle crime.
I pay tribute to the efforts, commitment and dedication of the police, all the others who work in the criminal justice system agencies, and the hundreds of thousands of volunteers in victim support, neighbourhood watch and many other local organisations for that achievement.
The recent improvements have, however, taken place in the context of more fundamental and deep-seated problems. Over the past 20 years, the performance of the criminal justice system has kept pace neither with long-term trends in crime nor with new types of crime. Too few of fences are detected and prosecuted successfully. Between 1980 and 1995 the number of recorded offences doubled, but the number of convictions in respect of those offences fell by a third. To put it mildly, the system has not been as successful as it should have been in catching, prosecuting and punishing criminals.
Cases still take too long, and sentencing is too variable, and insufficiently focused on reducing reoffending. Within two years of starting a community sentence or finishing a prison sentence, more than half of all offenders will be back in court to be convicted and sentenced for further offences. TN legacy of those failures is that crime in this country is still too high, in comparison not only with the levels here 20 years ago but with those of many other western countries. Furthermore, the British crime survey showed that although violent crime has fallen by 4 per cent., there are worrying increases in street crime, including robbery.
In the Command Paper, the Government have set out to tackle the longer-term problems. Alongside the continuing improvements put it place over the past four years, the paper describes our further strategy for reducing crime and reforming the criminal justice system. It describes a demanding programme for delivering the targets set out in the criminal justice service public service agreement, and identifies a wide range of new areas in which we are seeking improvements.
Those improvement are focused on four key themes. The first is crime prevention, and dealing with the factors that appear to increase the chances of a person"s getting into crime in the first place. The second is catching and convicting more offenders—especially persistent offenders—to close the justice gap between crimes reported to the police and those resulting in a criminal being brought to justice. The third theme is ensuring that punishments fit the criminal as well as the crime, thus reducing reoffending and crime itself. The fourth is radically improving treatment for victims, to ensure that their need for information, support and advice is better met at every stage of the criminal justice process.
Research that we have undertaken shows that a small group of hard-core, highly persistent offenders—fluid, but probably no more than 100,000 strong at any given time—may be responsible for about half of all crime. Our strategy, involving both investment and reform, is intended to help catch and convict more of those serious and persistent offenders, and to do so more often.
The police will have the means to give priority to those serious and persistent offenders. The entire active criminal population will be on the DNA database by 2004.


The national intelligence model will be adopted by every police force to establish a consistent basis for gathering, sharing and using intelligence. In addition to previously announced measures to increase the number of police officers to the highest-ever level by March 2003, the document details proposals to improve detective capability, leadership and the management of senior careers in the police service, and to enhance the prospects of those who make a career of being a front-line constable.
As a whole, the criminal justice system will receive the biggest injection of new resources in 20 years. This will deliver more staff, more capacity, and the modernisation of information technology systems for all those working in the criminal justice agencies. A 23 per cent. real terms rise in funding for 2001–02 will enable the Crown Prosecution Service to recruit scores A extra prosecutors, remedying the underfunding that has bedevilled the service ever since it was established.
With that investment and reform must come results. There will be a criminal justice system-wide target for 2004 to increase by 100,000 the number of recorded crimes ending in an offender being brought to justice.
The document sets out why we also want to consider fully and carefully the scope for improving court organisation and procedures and the rules of evidence, and codifying and clarifying the criminal law itself. In December 1999, we asked Sir Robin Auld, a Lord Justice of Appeal, to conduct a comprehensive and independent review of the criminal courts. The Government will take final decisions after carefully considering his recommendations.
To achieve our broad goal of punishment that fits the criminal as well as the crime, we aim radically to reform the present sentencing structure, focusing on preventing reoffending as well as on punishment, and ensuring that persistent offending leads to an increased severity of punishment. There will be a new approach to community punishments and better enforcement.
From April this year, the new national probation service will have its funding increased by more than a fifth in real terms over the next three years, to Deliver a 5 per cent. reduction in reoffending. There will for the first time be proper supervision of short-sentence prisoners after their release, and a new emphasis on sentence management and review. In making final decisions in this area, we shall take full account of the review of the sentencing framework under Mr. John Halliday, a senior Home Office official.
There will be a range of new measures to deal with young offenders, including a commitment that every young offender in custody will get a minimum of 30 hours a week of education, training or similar development work.
Many of the 100,000 most persistent offenders are hard drug users. We must better target our efforts to break the link between drugs and crime. New measures include the introduction nationally of drug treatment and testing orders. There will be more referrals into treatment at the point of arrest, and drug testing at the point of charge, to ensure that we identify drug misuse problems and intervene much earlier. Over the next three years, spending on drug treatment is due to rise by 70 per cent., to more than £400 million.
There will also be a lot more money to help to educate prisoners and ensure that they are able to get work on release.
Finally, I would like to speak about victims and witnesses. Support for victims in the United Kingdom is already high by international standards—I am delighted during my period as Home Secretary to have doubled the amount of financial support available to victim support—and we have the most generous criminal injuries compensation scheme in the world, but the Government are determined to do still more to deliver a better deal for victims and witnesses.
Tomorrow, I will publish a consultation paper that will include details of our proposals for a new charter of victims" rights and a victims" ombudsman. That will include a commitment to ensure that victims are kept properly informed throughout the progress of their case.
We want the criminal justice system and everyone working within it to focus on two clear and linked outcomes: the delivery of justice and the reduction of crime. That is the goal of the programme that I have set out today. I commend the Command Paper to the House.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I thank the Home Secretary for his customary courtesy in providing the Opposition with a copy of his statement well in advance, but I draw his attention to the fact that, despite the supposed Home Office embargo, the press have had the details of the announcement drip-fed to them by Downing street over the past week. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would comment on that and tell us precisely who authorised it.
I welcome the Home Secretary"s intention to expand the number of secure training places by 400, but does he accept that that is modest compared with the 1,000 places that we have already announced we will provide? If the menace of youth crime is all that he claims it to be, why will the right hon. Gentleman not match our proposals? However, bearing in mind his opposition when the previous Government introduced secure training centres, I suppose that we ought to welcome the U-turn.
I also welcome the Home Secretary"s decision to consult on a new victims" charter. Will he be implementing the proposals that we have put forward for statutory rights for the victims of crime and if not, why not?
The right hon. Gentleman"s document says at paragraph 3.109 that victims and witnesses—[Interruption.] Labour Members just do not want to hear this, Mr. Speaker; that"s okay. The document says:
Victims and witnesses want to be kept informed. Current performance is not good enough.
Is that not a damning indictment of the record of this Government, who in their manifesto four years ago pledged to ensure that victims were kept fully informed of the progress of their case? That manifesto pledge was broken and now we are supposed to rejoice at a consultation document, just a few weeks before a general election.
The right hon. Gentleman said that antisocial behaviour orders had removed a climate of fear and intimidation. How many orders did the Home Office estimate would be issued, and how many have actually been issued over the past two years? Are the 2,660 extra prison places on top of the 12,600 extra places over the 15 years to 2011 that


were announced by the previous Government in March 1996? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that at any one time around 2,000 prisoners are out early on the Government"s home detention curfew scheme, in which case the extra places that he has announced should be occupied by those prisoners anyway?
Will the Home Secretary tell the House—no doubt his special adviser will have told him—how many prisoners will be released earlier than they are at present as a result of the proposals in his document, especially those on custody-plus sentences? Will he also spell out in detail exactly how persistent offenders will receive tougher sentences under the Government"s proposals? Will those sentences be mandatory and, if not, what guarantee is there that they will be imposed?
What exactly is the status of the Home Secretary"s so-called crime plan? Despite the spin doctors" efforts to convince us otherwise, there are hardly any firm detailed proposals on the courts or on sentencing. Throughout the document, the words "consider", "examine, "might" and "possibly" are used in relation to proposals that the right hon. Gentleman"s spin doctors have been putting forward over the past week as the Government"s firm plans for action.
Why is the right hon. Gentleman making what is billed as a major 10-year announcement on the court system and sentencing before either the Auld report on the criminal court system or the Halliday report on sentencing have been produced? Is he aware of Lord Justice Auld"s statement last week that the Lord Chancellor has assured him that, pending receipt and consideration of the report, the Government do not intend to take final decisions on issues within his terms of reference? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Justice Auld has said that his review is
unassociated with and uninfluenced by current Governmental and political initiatives"?
So, is what is in this so-called crime plan final or not? If not, how can the Home Secretary claim any credibility for proposals with which the senior judge conducting the Government"s own review of criminal justice clearly wants nothing to do? Should there not be a "check against delivery" sticker on the plan as well as on the right hon. Gentleman"s statement?
Under this Government, police numbers have been slashed by more than 2,500, violent crime is rising and more than 30,000 criminals have been let out of jail early. Many of the right hon. Gentleman"s flagship policies have been abject failures. In other words, the Government have produced endless spin and no delivery. Even the Prime Minister said this morning, "Clearly we haven"t done enough." What he actually meant was that, clearly, he has done very little.
Is it not the reality that the right hon. Gentleman was rushed into his announcement by a Prime Minister who has realised that his Government have failed to be tough on crime and to deliver on their promises? The Prime Minister thinks that the solution lies in making another set of promises in time for the election. The reality was stated by the Home Secretary"s own special adviser,

Mr. Justin Russell, who said that the right hon. Gentleman"s policy "doesn"t look very impressive", and that it would be, in practice,
a significant softening of sentencing arrangements".
In reality, is not today"s announcement a desperate attempt to cover up the failure of child curfew orders, antisocial behaviour orders and the special early release plan, which has created more than 1,000 victims of crimes committed by perpetrators who should still have been in jail, and who would have been in jail if we had been in office? Does not the announcement attempt to cover up the first rise in crime in six years and a huge decrease in both regular police officers and specials?
Far be it from me to reject a repentant sinner, but let me say this. When we proposed measures to give victims more rights, the Home Secretary was silent. When we proposed to expand secure training centre provision, he said that it would be too costly. When we proposed cops in shops and better use of part-timers, the right hon. Gentleman shrugged When we proposed more purpose in prison regimes, he laughed. Yet today he proposes all those things. If it has taken him so long to catch up with the Opposition, he should make way for us, which is exactly what he will have to do in a couple of months" time.

Mr. Straw: As usual, I shall endeavour to answer the right hon. Lady"s questions. She spoke of the time when her party was in office. Indelible from the record of the previous Government are the facts that crime doubled while the number of people convicted of crime fell by one third. They did nothing to bring together the disparate aspects of the criminal justice system. If one thing, above all others, led to the degradation of our criminal justice system, it was the botched reorganisation of the Crown Prosecution Service in the mid-1980s and its continued underfunding throughout the remainder of the Conservatives" period in office. That is one of the many things that we have determined we will put right. Now that the economy is on track, we are able to do so by increasing total spending on the CPS by 23 per cent. in a single year.
The right hon. Lady asked a series of questions. She noted that we are promising 400 extra secure training centre places for young offenders, but asked why we would not match her pledge of 1,000 places. The reason is simply that we are not in the business of spraying promises around like confetti without any resources to pay for them, as the previous Administration did with catastrophic electoral consequences.
The best illustration of the difference between what the Conservatives said and what they would have done had they returned to office in May 1997 lies in the spending plans that they published in the month of the election. They promised 5,000 extra officers, but, as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) will remember well, they also promised less money in real terms. That was the reality. Time and again, they made promises and refused to match them with money. We have matched our manifesto promises with action, and we have put those promises into practice.
The right hon. Lady asked about persistent offenders and whether the changes that we are flagging up would necessarily result in mandatory sentences. We shall not make a final decision on that point until we have received


the report from John Halliday. What is plain, however, is that the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which established the present sentencing framework, is fundamentally flawed in that it does not give proper weight to the persistence of offending. That sentencing framework certainly needs to be changed. How exactly that is to be done remains to be seen, but I do not rule out the use of more mandatory sentences or of steps to ensure a proper gradation into custody if people do not accept the opportunities to get out of crime offered through more effective community punishments—just as we have provided similar steps for young offenders.
The last of the charges made against us by the right hon. Lady is that the Command Paper has, from time to time, used the words "consider" and "examine". I plead guilty to that charge. We do indeed say that we will consider and examine a number of proposals. If only the Opposition considered and examined ideas and proposals before they spoke about these matters, they would be much more effective as an Opposition.

Mr. Alun Michael: I welcome the emphasis on victims in the Home Secretary"s statement. Does he agree that many communities throughout the country experience the occasional relief of seeing an individual or a small group of people consigned to prison and a consequent reduction in crime in their area, but fear a fresh wave of crime when those people emerge from prison? Does he agree that the strong message must be, first, that if people reoffend, punishment will be strict and will follow quickly; and secondly, that there will be the hope of rehabilitation—not least through a job—for those who chose an alternative way of proceeding?

Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. We have to tackle the causes of crime We have to provide convicted offenders with a better or opportunity to get out of their life of crime, but as my right hon. Friend makes clear, we must also raise the game against persistent criminals. That is what we propose to do by ensuring effective supervision of short-sentence prisoners.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) asked me about the number of prisoners who were released early Last year, 95,000 prisoners were released early under her sentencing legislation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: No Opposition party can fail to welcome a Government who take an interest in trying to deal with crime and its causes—to that extent the Home Secretary"s statement is welcome. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the launch of the plan comes after we have followed a four-year road that has been paved with failed intentions and full of falsely raised expectations? The Labour party still has a long way to go before it can persuade people throughout the country that it is effective in dealing either with crime or with the causes of crime.
On the deterrence and detection of crime, will the Home Secretary admit that it was a terrible mistake to let police numbers fall by 2,500 over he past two years? There should be a target, with a Government guarantee, that, within a few years at most there will be no community in the country that does not have enough police officers to do the job.
On conviction rates and the prevention of reoffending, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we must do much better than we have done over the past year, when convictions dropped by 60,000? We must do much better on constructive activity in prison than at Pentonville, which he visited this morning, where such activity dropped from 24 to 20 hours a week under the previous Tory Government, and from 20 to 17 hours a week under the Labour Government. There should be a guarantee that every prisoner—not just young offenders—will have a full working week of constructive activity with, in addition, a full system of continuing rehabilitation for as long as they need it when they leave prison.
On victims, especially the victims of the alcohol and drug-related offences that are such a terrible scourge, will the Home Secretary reconsider the Government"s refusal thus far to accept the establishment of a permanent advisory body, like a royal commission, on the abuse of alcohol and drugs? Victims should have the right not only to give written statements—that is welcome—but to appear before the court after conviction and before sentence if they choose to do so. Such initiatives would be much more effective than either the gimmick of curfews or the attempt to get rid of the right to choose jury trial on which the liberties of many people depend.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach to the proposals. I do not accept what he says about our record. He would be hard-pressed to find another incoming Administration in the past 50 years who have had a better record in reducing crime. Crime increased by 40 per cent. in the first three and a half years of the Major Administration and by 20 per cent. in the first three and a half years of the Thatcher Administration, but in the first three and a half years of the Blair Administration, crime has decreased by between seven and 10 per cent. That is the truth of our record.
I regret the fact that police numbers had fallen until about a year ago, just as I regret the fact that they fell, from 1993, under the previous Administration. However, I regret very much more the fact that there were boom-and-bust policies in place that would have led, and would have continued to lead, to an even larger reduction in police numbers under the previous Administration"s published spending plans. That is the truth, and the simple fact is that we have put more money into the police service than the previous Administration had planned to do. In many cases, chief constables chose to spend the money in other ways, and the number of civilian officers has increased by 1,000 while the number of uniformed officers had decreased by 2,500, but that is now turning around. There is a 75 per cent. increase in the number of new recruits going to the training schools, and the number of police officers will rise to record levels within two to three years.
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that convictions dropped by 40,000. The figures, which I looked at this morning, show that convictions increased from 300,000 in 1996 to about 340,000 last year.
We want a clearer definition of purposeful activity. At the moment, it includes, for example, time spent seeing visitors, which is important but does not stop people reoffending. We are doubling the number of places in education available to prisoners and doubling the number of opportunities for prisoners to go straight from prison to work, and I think that that will work.
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the problems of alcohol abuse. I do not think that a royal commission would solve that problem at the moment, but I am willing to consider the matter. I believe that, although people are increasingly aware of the problems of hard drug abuse in this country, we are only beginning to understand how serious is alcohol abuse, which is linked not only to violent crime, but to many other crimes. We are doing a lot in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which is currently before Parliament, but I know that there is a lot more that we should do.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House more about the plans to deal with those who reoffend and commit further crimes when out on bail—a matter of intense frustration to the police in Greater Manchester? Is he aware that the Greater Manchester police—whose numbers have risen, are rising and are programmed to rise still further—are being caused great offence by posters scattered around Manchester from the Conservative party that describe the police as paper shufflers? Given that civilianisation has reached 90 per cent. among the Greater Manchester police, is it not time that the Conservative party supported the police instead of insulting them?

Mr. Straw: Yes, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Only last week I had the privilege of discussing the problems, especially that of bail bandits, with Mr. David Wilmott, the chief constable of Greater Manchester, and his colleagues. I am pleased to say that, last weekend, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) announced changes, which will be included in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, to make it easier for courts to place on remand young offenders who break their bail. That is long overdue. We strongly support the change, which is suggested in "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead", to the way in which the Bail Act 1976 is drafted so that there should be a presumption against bail wherever bail or its conditions are broken. My right hon. Friend and I hear far too many stories from police officers about cases where courts have granted bail—often on certain conditions—but where, when the offender has been brought back before the court for breaching those conditions, instead of immediately remanding him into custody, which is where he should be, the court has either continued the bail with conditions or, in far too many extraordinary cases, has abandoned the bail conditions altogether. That is simply an invitation to those offenders to continue spree offending, and it must be ended. That requires changes to the law, but we already expect changes in practice by the courts.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton about paper shuffling. The police do not take kindly to the near insult that they have received from the Conservative party about their work. The simple truth is that, under our Administration, we have cut by a third the paper burden on the police. We introduced the Narey reforms and they are reflected in the indicators of police morale, which show that sickness rates have gone down very significantly and that assaults on the police have dropped by a quarter.

Mr. Michael Howard: When will the Home Secretary abandon his ludicrous practice of

comparing his performance with that of the first four years of the incoming Conservative Government more than 20 years ago—a Government who themselves inherited from their predecessors a legacy of apparently inexorably rising crime—and start to compare his performance with that of the final four years of the previous Government, when crime fell by an unprecedented 18 per cent? That was the legacy that he him self inherited.
Given the unprecedented rebuke that Lord Justice Auld administered to the Government last week, may I also press the Home Secretary on the relationship between his proposals and the Auld report? In view of the Lord Chancellor"s assurance that no final decisions would be taken on anything within the terms of reference of the Auld report until the report had been received and considered, how many of the proposals that have been issued with such a fanfare today should have been marked "purely provisional"? Would it not have been better to wait until the Auld report had been received and considered?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman became something of a connoisseur of rebukes from the judiciary when he was Home Secretary. Under our proposals, his offending record would certainly qualify him for a lengthy period inside while, even under the stricter regime that I am proposing, I would probably get off for a first offence—and it is a first offence—with a caution.
I do not recognise the description of Lord Justice Auld"s remarks as a rebuke. His work is independent and I am quite clear that his report will be independent. He placed the emerging themes of his report on a website for everyone to see. They were not his recommendations, but they were themes and we have drawn on them. I happen to think that the whole House will welcome this indication of the direction in which we wish the criminal justice system to go.
With regard to the right hon. and learned Gentleman"s first point, he cannot have it both ways. At the last election and the previous one, he campaigned time and again on the Conservative Government"s record on the economy and many other things. He cannot pick and choose the dates that suit him. [HON. MEMBERS: "You did."] I am picking a date when there was an election—May 1997. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot continue like some Pol Pot figure declaring a year zero—but if wants to pick and choose, I have the figures for his period with me. Between April 1991–92 and April 1996–97—that is he period he wanted—total violent crime increased by 28 per cent. and robbery increased by 52 per cent.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I welcome my right hon. Friend"s statement and wish to point out that West Midlands police has, in the past year, achieved a cut of one in eight in the number of burglaries, improved by one in five the number of robberies detected and is charging substantially more people with offences involving cocaine and heroin. Given that too many prisoners return to prison, can my right hon. Friend confirm that he expects the Prison Service to set and meet high targets for work on rehabilitation and resettlement as the most effective way of preventing reoffending, and that it will have the resources to do that?

Mr. Straw: Yes, I can. I also pay tribute to the West Midlands police service, which with a budget similar to


those of many other services increased its police numbers by nearly 240 between April 1997 and September last year.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Home Secretary has said that at last there will be a significant increase in the budget of the Crown Prosecution Service. Will he confirm that the service remains independent? Will he explain what is meant by the criminal justice system-wide target to increase by 100,000 the number of recorded crimes ending with an offender being brought to justice? Does that mean that, this year, 100,000 such recordable crimes are going unprosecuted, or are we to expect an increase of at least 100,000 in such recordable crimes? Is it not a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide where and when it is right and fair to prosecute, and not for the Home Secretary?

Mr. Straw: Of course the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions properly remain independent of, for example, the Home Secretary. However, the antediluvian approach that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has exhibited shows precisely why we need far better to co-ordinate the work of the criminal justice agencies. Independence in decision making on individual cases cannot equal immunity from any effective management or co-ordination of the different criminal justice services.

Mr. Joe Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, all too often, criminals on council estates go free because witnesses are terrified to give evidence? They know that when they go to if e police, their name will somehow get out, and the next day they find that their car has been vandalised, they get phone calls at midnight from heavy-breathers and they are abused and shouted at in the street. Those witnesses come ot their MPs and give us names and addresses, and we take the matter up with the police, but the culture of fear goes on.
Even in drugs cases, people on council estates who let the police take pictures or film a video from their bedroom window have their name read out in court, which is a load of nonsense. Communities in Northern Ireland and New York, for example, have realised that there should be rewards, even cash rewards, for giving evidence. There must also be protection for witnesses who live on the estates and who have to suffer the consequences even after the criminals have gone to jai. Until we eradicate that fear, more and more criminals will get off scot-free.

Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend"s concern about the intimidation that takes place not only on council estates but elsewhere. Fortunately, although there has been only a relatively small increase in the grand total, the number of people being brought to justice is going up while crime is going down. A great deal more needs to be done to rebalance the criminal justice system so that there is a fair balance between the defendant, the public and the victim.
I was astonished to discover that when the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) was Attorney-General, fees for defence counsel were allowed to grow significantly in advance of those available to the prosecuting counsel in the same cases. That was a scandalous situation—which arose I am sure inadvertently, but under the right hon. and learned Gentleman"s nose.
We are including in a Bill currently before Parliament much better protection for witnesses, particularly in cases involving antisocial behaviour orders. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) asked me about the number of ASBOs, which I found extraordinary because the Conservatives" policy is to tear up that law altogether so that people in those communities would have none of the protection afforded by those orders. Some 150 ASBOs have been put in place, which is 150 more than there would have been under the previous Administration. We want that number greatly to increase, but the Conservative party would leave communities without any proper protection.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great concern in rural areas about low police numbers? When will he introduce the recommendation of the external consultants whom he employed that the sparsity factor in the police funding formula should be increased? When the right hon. Gentleman has taken advice, will he tell the House when he proposes to pay special constables?

Mr. Straw: On the right hon. and learned Gentleman"s first point, although the standard spending assessment formula for next year does not provide for that, we have followed a different route and provision is made in the formula for Lincolnshire. [Interruption.] No, I am talking about the next three years. Rural forces will receive £30 million over the next three years, based on the equivalent of the sparsity formula. We believe that we are greatly helping rural forces.

Ms Bridget Prentice: My right hon. Friend knows that I always welcome statements that announce his intention to deal robustly with offenders, especially persistent young offenders. I am happy to say that I represent one of the safest boroughs in London. It is so safe because its police have welcomed my right hon. Friend"s policies and have targeted persistent young offenders. Is he aware of the pioneering system that they use to get the local community to help them to find persistent young offenders? As part of the "ringmaster" system, the police forewarn people about possible crimes in their areas, which encourages members of the community to be more vigilant and respond more quickly to the police. In targeting persistent young offenders, especially those who consistently offend in particular areas, can my right hon. Friend say how we can expand the Lewisham system to ensure that such people are brought to book?

Mr. Straw: I pay tribute to the Lewisham police and local authority and to everyone else who has helped to reduce crime in that area. Lewisham"s experience shows that, for the same resources that are available to many equivalent London and other metropolitan boroughs, a great deal can be achieved by having good leadership and management and a clear focus on crime reduction. My hon. Friend asks about the "ringmaster" system. I do not know a huge deal about it, but I am looking forward to receiving further details on it, especially on how we can make better use of it, for example in the crime reduction plan and crime reduction toolkits that we are making available across the country.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Home Secretary mentioned codification


of the criminal law. Does that mean that he recognises that annual legislation on criminal justice has not proved helpful in removing inflated expectations of change? Bearing in mind that the Law Commission"s proposals for codification have been lying on the table for many years, what does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Straw: I have in front of me the Canadian "Pocket Criminal Code" from 1996 which contains in one volume Canada"s human rights Act, all its substantive criminal law, its procedural law and matters of jurisdiction. We should aim to have such a simple code. I am aware that the Canadian Parliament regularly amends the law. I do not accept that the sensible and widely welcomed amendments that I have introduced over the past four years could not happen under a codification system. However, if we move towards a codification process, Parliament will need to examine its internal procedures. We have sensible procedures to deal with consolidation, but do not have up-to-date modern procedures to deal with codification. We would need those if such a code were to be kept regularly up to date.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Can we have an assurance that the next Labour Government will hit the ground thinking on drugs policy? We will soon be marking the 30th anniversary of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. During that time, the greatest failure in almost every European country has been an inability to reduce drug use, drug death and drug crime, which have increased by 2000 per cent. Can my right hon. Friend re-examine the Police Foundation report and consider the examples of Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland, which have redefined drug use? As a result, they have reduced drug-related crime and have redirected money to other purposes. That has saved money, especially with regard to crimes that create victims. Are we going to be one of the last countries in the world to continue to use our criminal justice system to persecute and imprison seriously ill people for using a drug medicinally?

Mr. Straw: Of course, we shall continue to think very carefully about this issue. We make our own decisions on cannabis, as does the House, but we are led by scientific evidence. That does not come full square to my hon. Friend"s view. He needs to bear in mind the fact that, although we all recognise his evangelical zeal for a particular solution, it does not follow that just because everybody thinks about an issue, they come to only one conclusion: the one that he happens to draw.

Sir Peter Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman still hold the view that successful prosecution of local criminals is based very much on the willingness of local witnesses to come forward to assist the police? That depends to a considerable extent on magistrates courts being near the community that they cover. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman have words with the Lord Chancellor to try to overcome the right hon. and noble Gentleman"s desire to close magistrates courts throughout the country? The closure of seven near or around my area of Devon is quite unnecessary.

Mr. Straw: I am sure that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor would be very interested in

any evidence—and I mean evidence—of a shift in the numbers of people prosecuted as some courts are closed. I have not seen that evidence, but I am sure that my right hon. and noble Friend would be open to argument about it. We are concerned with a modernised criminal justice system, end to end, letter to get the criminals who have committed offences into justice.

Ms Ann Coffey: An anti-crime strategy depends on effective partnerships at local as well as national level. I wonder what my right hon. Friend thinks about the decision of the Lib-Dem council in Stockport to remove funding for a post on the youth offending team, which shows very little commitment to tackling youth crime. Will my right hon. Friend be tough not only on crime but on the councils that fail to deliver their part of the crime bargain?

Mr. Straw: I was not aware of that; I shall certainly look into it with some care. I am of course aware that not a day goes past—indeed, not an hour goes past—in this place without the Liberal Democrats promising to spend even more than the Conservative party on one thing after another. It is a different story locally. I know the youth offending team in Stockport; I have high admiration for it. One of its greatest success stories—ensuring that a persistent young offender got custody and then moved out of criminality—is highlighted on page 31 of the Command Paper.

Mr. Michael Fulton: Is the Home Secretary aware that, shortly, when Sevenoaks police station is closed, there will not be a single fully manned police station in my constituency, and that all these cross-cutting programmes and partnerships are no substitute for proper, locally based policing of our streets and villages? Does he also accept that one cause of the justice gap to which, he referred is the police gap that he created?

Mr. Straw: I am aware that at any time individual chief officers will make judgments about how they use their resources. As people"s patterns of life change, there will be some changes. That led to the closure of many more police stations while the Conservatives were in office. In North Yorkshire—I speak from recollection—75 police stations were closed during the five years immediately preceding this Administration.
As for Kent, David Phillips and Kent constabulary have one of the best records of any chief constable and of any police service in the country. I should have thought that, rather than whingeing about that, the hon. Gentleman would be praising the success of a very good police service.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that drugs are the root cause of many crimes? On a recent visit to Armley prison in Leeds, I was told that more than 80 per cent. of offenders there had some connection with drug abuse; yet, when they are released, they are too often and for too long left to their own devices, and return to the cycle of drug abuse. What measures can be taken to encourage former prisoners to adopt a more positive and productive, rather than destructive, life style?

Mr. Straw: I entirely accept my hon. Friend"s observation. A significant proportion—at least half and


probably two thirds—of the hard core of 100,000 persistent offenders are heroin or cocaine abusers. We are intercepting drug abusers at the point of arrest through arrest referral schemes. Compulsory testing at the point of charge will ensure that that information is available to the courts when deciding whether to grant bail: in general, a court dealing with a persistent drug abuser should not provide bail, as that will simply lead into a continuing cycle of drug abuse. We are also setting specified community punishments, such as drug treatment and testing orders. Persons going into custody will have clear through-care, with detox, education and treatment in custody and steps taken to ensure that they continue that treatment on release. That is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I are establishing a national treatment agency for drug abuse and increasing its funds by 70 per cent.

Mr. Simon Thomas: The Home Secretary asked for evidence of the effect on the criminal justice system of the closure of magistrates courts. Victims of crime in my constituency tell me—and, through me, the Home Secretary—that they do not want to travel two hours to have their case heard in a magistrates court. How can the people of Wales, especially those living in rural areas, have any faith in the latest bunch of promises when the Government propose to close two thirds of the magistrates courts in west Wales?

Mr. Straw: I know that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is always open to representations. However, as people"s pattern of life changes, so, too, does public service provision. Police numbers in every police service in Wales have increased since 1997, and the crime reduction record of those police services has been exemplary. South Wales has had one of the best records in the country, with a reduction in crime of more than 20 per cent. since 1997.

Foot and Mouth Disease

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): With permission, I wish to make a statement about the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
As my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Hayman reported on 21 February, the first case of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom for 20 years was confirmed on the evening of last Tuesday, 20 February, in pigs at an abattoir and in cattle on a neighbouring farm near Brentwood in Essex. The number of confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease rose to nine this morning; two further cases, bringing the total to 11, have been confirmed early this afternoon.
Today"s cases are, first, in sheep at Hatherleigh near Okehampton in Devon at another farm in the same ownership as the one confirmed yesterday; at Bromham near Chippenham in Wiltshire, in sheep at an abattoir that received animals from the Devon source; in a farm between the two cases in Northumberland, which is likely to have been windborne spread; and at a farm near the Welsh border in Herefordshire, which had also received sheep from Devon. Infected area restrictions are being imposed. A decision was taken at lunchtime today to kill the remaining animals on the several premises in Devon under the same ownership, and on one neighbouring farm, as dangerous contacts.
Investigations are continuing into a number of other premises where there is reason to believe that there may be disease. The Government"s overriding priority is the containment and eradication of this disease. On 21 February, the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission acted swiftly to prohibit temporarily the export of live animals, meat, fresh milk and other animal products from the UK. Given the acutely infectious nature of foot and mouth disease, that was a necessary step in helping to prevent the spread of the disease to other countries. We are able to export non-susceptible animals and their products, provided that they meet certain conditions and are accompanied by veterinary certificates. Appropriate certificates are now available for issue from MAFF animal health offices.
We immediately ceased issuing export health certificates for export to third countries for any animals or products which cannot also be exported to other European Union member states. Let me make it absolutely clear to the House that that applies whether or not the import conditions for a given country would allow us to export. We are urgently tracing all exports of foot and mouth disease susceptible animals from areas under suspicion to other member states since 1 February, but before the export ban came into effect. The European Commission has been kept informed at every stage, along with our EU partners. I shall be updating the Council of Agriculture Ministers tomorrow. In particular, we advised the German authorities of a consignment of sheep from the Devon outbreak, and those sheep were slaughtered by the German authorities yesterday.
Some of the cases have been on premises which are associated with substantial movements of animals. The confirmation of the cases in Northumberland on Friday 23 February showed that the disease was not confined to Essex, and had been in the country longer than had at first been apparent. In those new circumstances, the chief


veterinary officer advised that stringent controls were needed. After discussion with the food and farming industries, and with the devolved Administrations, I announced later on Friday 23 February that there should be a seven day standstill of livestock movements throughout Great Britain. That exceptional measure was imposed at 5 pm on Friday, and is due to expire at midnight on Friday 2 March.
The Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency have confirmed that foot and mouth disease has no implications for human health or food. The disease causes serious loss of condition, and therefore commercial value, to the main farmed animal species of cattle, pigs and sheep. The presence of disease also blocks our export markets. The disease is highly infectious between animals and it can be transmitted by movements of people and vehicles. Unlike classical swine fever, which we had to deal with in East Anglia last year, it is carried through the air.
Firm control measures had to be taken. The Government are well aware of the disruption that the temporary controlled area in Great Britain has caused to farming, the food chain and the wider rural community. I pay tribute to the responsible approach that the industry and the public are taking. During the course of this week, the state veterinary service, under the chief veterinary officer, will continue its huge task of tracing and controlling the disease. It has been assured of all of the resources that it needs for that task. The Government are calling on the private veterinary profession and other countries" state veterinary services for assistance.
Baroness Hayman, the Minister of State, will be meeting industry and veterinary representatives tomorrow with the chief veterinary officer. Among other matters, they will discuss whether it is possible, consistent with a rigorous approach to the control of disease, to allow for some tightly controlled movement of livestock for slaughter. Consideration is also being given to the temporary closure of footpaths and rights of way. We are keeping in the closest touch with retailers and food producers to ensure that there should be no serious disruption to food supplies. I am grateful to consumers who have, as I requested, continued their normal pattern of buying.
The House will know that the policy of successive Governments has been that compensation is paid only for animals which are slaughtered for disease control purposes—in the case of foot and mouth disease, at full market value. Foot and mouth disease presents a relatively clear clinical picture. Incubation periods tend to be short. I therefore hope that the movement restrictions necessary for disease control will not have to be too protracted.
The Government are determined to eliminate this disease. My ministerial team, my Department"s staff and I will give this work the highest priority. I welcome the firm support that we have received from the industry, people throughout the country, our European partners, and others further afield in our efforts to do so.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I welcome the Minister"s statement. I am grateful to him for letting me have a copy of it about 45 minutes ago.
This matter is extremely serious. I am sure that every Member will join me in expressing profound sympathy for farmers who are affected and in the front line of the crisis, and full support for everyone who is involved in the struggle to contain the disease.
The Opposition will give full backing to all the measures that are needed to contain the spread of foot and mouth disease, to assist livestock farmers through the crisis, to maintain food supplies and to restore export markets. We fully support the steps that have already been taken by the Government. I join the Minister in recognising the work of the state veterinary service, other vets and the many other people who have been under great pressure. It is likely that the work will have to continue for some time.
Will the Minister make it clear, at least in principle, that the Government recognise the problems of farmers who cannot move animals off their farms? Given the confirmation in his statement of further cases of foot and mouth disease, can he confirm that the seven day standstill of animal movements announced on Friday is likely to have to be extended? Does he appreciate that cashflow problems for many farmers will quickly become extremely acute? What help does he expect to offer those farmers and when is it likely that he will be able to make an announcement about such help? Does he agree that the £200 million of unclaimed agrimonetary compensation on the table in Brussels, much of which is due to the livestock sector, should be claimed in full immediately?
Containment is clearly the top priority, but understanding how foot and mouth disease came to Britain is crucial if the risk of a recurrence is to be minimised. What steps are the Government taking to identify the source of the outbreak? If it appears that the source was imported meat, is the right hon. Gentleman ready to tighten controls on imports? Is he able to confirm reports that the unit in Northumberland was feeding pigs on swill, and bought its supplies from airports whose own sources may have been overseas?
I endorse the Minister"s advice to the public to avoid visiting livestock farming areas. Reports over the weekend suggest that not everyone has heeded that advice. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to conclude his consideration of whether action can be taken temporarily to suspend the use of footpaths and close rights of way. The Opposition will strongly support such moves. If parliamentary action is needed, we shall give it as fast a tract as we reasonably can.
Does the Minister agree that the crisis is sufficiently important to warrant an urgent debate in Parliament? It is a pity that the Government have not seen fit to change their business this week. I can announce that the Opposition will use half of our day on Wednesday for a debate on the matter to provide an opportunity to explore the subject in more detail.
Does the Minister agree also that the industry is too weak to survive such a crisis without urgent help? Does he recognise that the heartbreaking prospect for many farmers is not only the loss of their livelihood, but the destruction of their life"s work? Does he understand that the risk of human tragedies in these circumstances is real? Will he therefore assure the House that no stone will be left unturned in tackling the threat that faces one of Britain"s most important industries?

Mr. Brown: That is a very welcome change of tone from the hon. Gentleman. I confirm that no measure will


be left untaken and no stone left unturned in suppressing foot and mouth disease. The Government"s policy is to contain the disease and then to eradicate it.
I do not welcome the idea of an urgent debate. It will divert both ministerial resources and scarce veterinary resources from the front line that is bearing down on the disease—[Interruption.] This Opposition have just said that they will do everything they can to help the Government to suppress the disease. If their idea of helping is to divert resources, including ministerial time, from dealing with the disease outbreak to dealing with a parliamentary debate, I am glad that they are not setting out to disrupt us—[Interruption.]
On the question whether we will close the—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order.

Mr. Brown: It is absolutely disgraceful that the Opposition should try to shout down a Minister who is trying to respond to questions that they raised under the pretence of trying to help, but with every intention of gaining party political advantage from what ought to be an issue that unites us all in the national interest.
On access to the countryside, as I said in my statement, we are considering taking legal action to close rights of way temporarily.
On our understanding of the origin of the infection, I have already said in public that I have asked officials, first, to type the strain and give Ministers a list of potential sources if they cannot narrow it down to one; secondly, to consider whether our control measures are being enforced adequately—clearly, the law is firm but the question is whether controls are being enforced adequately; and thirdly, to examine the way in which the food chain works nowadays, with intensive farming and just-in-time delivery, and to consider whether that makes us more vulnerable to disease.
On compensation for consequential losses, no Government have ever paid compensation for consequential losses. The previous Government did not; the present Government have not, except where animal welfare issues were involved in the recent outbreak of classical swine fever in East Anglia. The question of agrimonetary compensation is a separate one and is being considered separately.
As for future movement restrictions, of course that issue is being kept under review. As I pointed out in my statement, it is likely that the regime will have to be reshaped, and, subject to veterinary advice, that will happen.
I have to tell the House that I have just had a twelfth case confirmed to me—a further Devon case, which is linked to the farm near Okehampton.

Dr. Gavin Strang: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on moving so quickly and comprehensively to freeze livestock movements. Does he agree with the British Veterinary Association that vaccination is not currently a viable policy? Vaccinated animals carry the virus, so all susceptible animals would have to be vaccinated repeatedly. That would mean that the disease would become endemic and would block exports from this country to a large section of the world.
Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the outbreak is further evidence of the importance of a well-equipped state veterinary service? Does he recall that under the Conservatives, between 1992 and 1997 the number of state vets was allowed to fall by about a third? Will he make it his objective in the medium to long term to restore the state veterinary service to its previous strength?

Mr. Brown: I have pledged to the chief veterinary officer, Jim Scudamore, all the resources that he needs to contain the outbreak, and he assures me that he is getting the resources that he needs.
On vaccination, I am advised not just by the chief vet, but by the National Farmers Union, the livestock industry and the major processors and retailers, that they would not welcome the use of vaccination to control the disease, rather than the use of movement restrictions, quarantine and extinction. There are two reasons for that: we would lose our export markets for a very long time, and we would be acknowledging that we had foot and mouth disease here in the United Kingdom. Our intention is not to acknowledge that it is here, but to exterminate it and get back to our disease-free status.

Mr. Colin Breed: I thank the Minister for his statement and for his usual courtesy in providing an advance copy.
I have a few questions. The ban on livestock movement will expire this Friday. What regime of controls is the right hon. Gentleman considering to follow the present ban? On the importation of food supplies, is he satisfied that food is being imported from foot and mouth disease-free countries? What consideration is he giving to banning the importation of food from countries that are known to have endemic foot and mouth disease?
Will he comment on the position of farmers with cattle that are approaching 30 months of age? Such farmers may have significant problems in respect of the over-30-months scheme. If they are prevented from selling cattle that are currently of 29 months of age, they will suffer considerable loss when those animals are more than 30-months-old. Finally, who has overall decision-making responsibility within the United Kingdom, bearing in mind the devolved responsibilities? What liaison is under way with Scotland in particular?

Mr. Brown: The devolved authorities and the Ministry are working closely together and are devising common approaches. Before any change is made, we speak at official level and, if necessary, consult on the telephone at ministerial level. What the hon. Gentleman said about the over-30-months scheme is true and we are keeping the matter under review. I cannot promise a relaxation of the regime to deal immediately with animals that are caught by the current circumstances, but I have it at the forefront of my mind. When veterinary authorities tell me that is possible to relax movement restrictions, that will be a priority for consideration.
On the question of food imports, it is already unlawful to import from an area where foot and mouth disease is endemic any product that might bear the virus. On livestock movements, although I cannot make a comprehensive statement to the House today, I can say two things: there is bound to be a successor regime
following the expiry of the present regime this Friday, and I am considering how it should be shaped and what exceptions should be allowed.

Dr. David Clark: May I join those who have said how awful this tragedy is, not only for farmers but for all those who live in the countryside? My right hon. Friend has the support of men and women of good will for the rigorous manner in which he has approached the situation. That is clearly the right way forward. I have two brief questions. First, will my right hon. Friend ensure that every facility is made available to local authority trading standards officers, who are responsible for monitoring the movement books for cattle and other animals? Secondly, will he reconsider the issue of imported feedstuffs? I understand what the regulations say, but there is a feeling in the farming community that they have not always been adhered to.

Mr. Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. We have been inundated with expressions of support for the approach that we are taking—expressions that have come even from those who are most affected by it. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the importance of the work of trading standards officers. Of course, they are employed by local authorities, but we are in touch with their central co-ordinating body and they will be present at our meeting tomorrow with other interested parties. On imported feed, I have asked for work to be done to consider whether our enforcement of the current rules is as rigorous as it should be, or whether there is some other area that we need to address. The continuing inquiries into the source of the outbreak will inform that trawl of the regulations.

Mr. Eric Pickles: The Minister will understand the great shock in my constituency and the fear within the local farming community, which has been reinforced by the billowing smoke that is over Warley. Over the weekend, I spoke to Mr. Gemmel, a farmer who is one of the victims of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. He is showing great restraint and dignity while seeing his life"s work destroyed. I spoke a short time ago to Mr. Cheal, the owner of the abattoir, who is working to eradicate the disease. He commends to the Minister and the House the sharp-eyed veterinary officer who spotted it. If that had not happened, the outbreak would undoubtedly have been more serious.
A couple of lessons can be learned from farmers in my constituency. The Minister will recall that I rang his office on Friday to ask that farms in the immediate vicinity receive information and advice. I am pleased to say that they have now done so. I hope that that is now commonplace where outbreaks occur. Unhappiness was expressed over the weekend because the Ministry website, the prime source of information, had not been updated. I am pleased that that has now happened.
Farmers in my constituency, especially those affected by the restrictions, stressed that the nature of farming has changed since 1967. Much diversification has happened into, for example, farm shops. Such activities are affected by movement restrictions. The problem that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) raised is

therefore acute. I hope that, when examining the new regime which will replace the current system on Friday, the Minister will carefully consider that problem and realise that farming in Essex is on a knife edge.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes four fair points. He is right that farmers and abattoir owners are the victims, not the cause, of the problem. They deserve sympathy and support, not blame. The best thing that the Government can do is to eliminate foot and mouth disease and help return the industry to normal trading as quickly as possible.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman"s comments about sharp-eyed vets and abattoir workers. Their prompt action in alerting the Ministry may well have helped contain the spread of the terrible condition, and the hon. Gentleman is right to praise them.
I want to provide information as quickly as possible and to be candid with the public. Circumstances are changing quickly, and there is a great hunger in the media for information. We are therefore holding regular briefings to tell them how matters have advanced. The media provide information immediately and everything that is said is broadcast at once. Many people may well find out about developments for the first time through the media. That is the way of the modern world. We are doing everything we can to ensure that the National Farmers Union and other interested parties get information as quickly as possible. However, the media tend to get there first nowadays—and that applies not only in the circumstances that we are discussing.

Dr. Jack Cunningham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the prompt and rigorous action that he and his officials have taken, not only in the United Kingdom but with our European partners, to try to counteract the deadly and frightening outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Does he recognise " that all reasonable people, not only in the House but throughout the country and especially in farming communities, will strongly support the measures that he has to pursue, however widespread they may become, to eliminate the sources of the infection? Will he refuse to be deflected by Opposition calls to take action on compensation that the Conservatives never took when in government?
Will my right hon. Friend pursue with Ben Gill, the president of the NFU —who has shown more statesmanship than the Conservative spokesman ever displayed—and the farming communities and their representatives all necessary action to eliminate foot and mouth disease and thus remove the threat from the thousands of farmers who are living in fear and trepidation?

Mr. Brown: The approach that my right hon. Friend outlines is right. Everyone contrasts the attitude of the NFU and others who earn their livelihoods in the livestock and food processing sectors with that of those who try to make political capital out of a national tragedy. My right hon. Friend is right to draw the House"s attention to the irony of demands for agrimonetary compensation from a political party that lid not pay a penny when it was in government.

Mr. David Curry: The Minister will realise that the main suspect is a waste food feeder


and that that was not the case in the swine fever epidemic. Will he focus attention on that and tell the House when there is something to report? Identifying the cause is crucial.
Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that footpaths and bridlepaths were heavily used in, for example, North Yorkshire at the weekend? The Government should take urgent action to close them, albeit temporarily, and perhaps issue red notices to bring home to people psychologically the importance of what is at stake. Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that farmers have to take their stocks to abattoirs, and that we do not want thousands of trailers running round the countryside trying to deliver livestock? What attention will he give to using some form of collection centres, such as auction marts, where proper disinfectant can be applied and where vehicles that we can be sure cannot transmit the disease can be provided?

Mr. Brown: On the right hon. Gentleman"s third point, consideration is being given to exactly that matter, and I hope to have something to say on it relatively soon. It is being considered in the context of the way in which the current movement restrictions work. The right hon. Gentleman asked a perfectly fair question about footpaths, and consideration is being given to whether more needs to be done. I am grateful to those members of the public who have heeded my request that they stay away from livestock farms for the time being. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, laws work best when they have consent behind them, but there are obvious questions of enforcement.
Of course, we all want to get to the absolute root cause of the matter, and as I said earlier to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), work is under way in the Ministry to get as close to that as we can. The right hon. Gentleman invites me to say more, but I am afraid that I cannot—at least in part for legal reasons.

Mr. Doug Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anxiety among the people in the west of Newcastle and in southern Northumberland at the events of the past week at Burnside farm, which is partly in my constituency? That anxiety has been fuelled by the further revelation today of a suspected outbreak at Westerhope farm, which is probably almost entirely in my constituency.
There is an overwhelming demand from all those within and outside the farming community that politicians do not bicker about this matter but deal with the real problems. Those people are asking how this could possibly have occurred at this farm in our area. I know what my right hon. Friend said in response to an earlier question, but will he say what time scale will apply to any investigation into the root cause? It has been reported that some of the conditions at Burnside farm partly contributed to the spread of the disease. Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether his officials have identified that as a possible reason for the spread?

Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend that this should not be a party political issue. Indeed, the entire nation should unite behind the Government in our stated objective of containing and eliminating the outbreak. The farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall is believed to be the farm at which the outbreak has been in the United Kingdom for

the longest time and, therefore, as far as we know at the moment, the first source of the disease. Investigations are continuing, and I do not want to say any more on that—again, partly for legal reasons.
It is likely that the spread to the farm in my hon. Friend"s constituency was windborne, and we have placed the area under strict quarantine. By far the best thing we can do is to quarantine the problem, bear down on it and eliminate it, and get back to a disease-free status as quickly as possible. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the Government"s approach.

Mr. John Burnett: There has been a number of confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease in my constituency and, given the parlous state of agriculture, that is a catastrophe for farmers and for many in the allied industries. I have spoken to Mr. Cleave in my constituency a number of times; he tells me that the work of MAFF and the MAFF vets is excellent and wants me to pay tribute to them. Nevertheless, I must raise a number of points on behalf of my constituents.
The first point relates to agrimonetary compensation. The Minister will be aware that all the eligible European Union countries draw that down. We hoped to hear from him a date when the money could be drawn down for our agriculture industry.
My second point concerns consequential loss. There is now much feed and fertiliser that is unusable. Agriculture has lost a great many markets. The market for exporting sheep has disappeared, and towards the end of last week the sheep price was about 30 per cent. less than the day before the announcement. Will the Minister consider some heads of consequential loss, not least, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) said, for cattle that are nearing the 30-month limit?
My third point is that the compensation that will be due and payable should be paid at once.

Mr. Brown: Where we have an obligation to pay compensation at 100 per cent., with independent valuation and an arbitration system, we try to get the money out to the farmer as quickly as we can.
Of course I cannot promise compensation for consequential loss—no previous Government have, and I do not believe that any future Government will. Am I taking a hard look at what could be done in the circumstances? Of course I am, and I am especially mindful of the animal welfare consequences, just as I was during the classical swine fever outbreak in East Anglia. There is a distinction between those farms that have suffered consequential losses as a result of their animals having been purchased and destroyed for disease control reasons—I understand that it is possible to insure against that—and those that are caught by movement restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of the condition but are not affected by it themselves. It is harder to get insurance against that.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, discussions are continuing between the Ministry and industry representatives, including from the NFU and the National Pig Association, on how we should handle the problem, because I believe that a scheme should be put in place. The discussions arose out of the classical swine fever outbreak.
The key issue on agrimonetary compensation, as always, is that there is not a pot of money waiting in Brussels for me to collect. The problem is not a lack of


political will but the fact that 81 per cent. of the cost of the measures comes directly from the United Kingdom taxpayer and has to take its place in the public spending round with competing priorities from other Departments.

Mr. Barry Jones: Can my right hon. Friend give any details on the situation in Wales, and specifically in north Wales, where there is great anxiety? Does he remember the occasion, a year or more ago, when I brought a deputation of the leadership of the Flintshire NFU to see him? He received them well, discussing matters with them for well over an hour. They have asked me to ask him what help he may give, in any way, shape or form, on loss of earnings, and whether there is to be any compensation, bearing in mind the terrible blow that is now falling on family farms. I express my thanks to him for his reception of the earlier deputation.

Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend and the leadership of the NFU in Flintshire did indeed make a very persuasive case, and I am not surprised that he echoes it now. I cannot add anything on Wales to my statement on the current foot and mouth outbreak, which covers the whole of the United Kingdom, not just England.
We have been able to confirm positives relatively swiftly, but it takes longer absolutely to confirm a negative, because the virus could be incubating but not yet showing up in laboratory tests. All the comfort that I can give to my right hon. Friend"s farming constituents today is that we have not had any further positives confirmed, and the passage of time, with continued negative test results, is a cause for hope.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Minister will be aware of the role it is thought was played by imported meat in the recent outbreak of swine fever in East Anglia. He will also be aware of the huge anxiety in the industry about the effect of illegally imported meat and, indeed, imported meat generally. He will also be aware that the supermarkets and those who speak for the food industry have been saying that there will be no problems for consumers because the shortfall that results from the current restrictions on our domestic industry will be made up by imports of foreign meat.
What measures does the right hon. Gentleman plan to put in place to ensure that there is the greatest hygiene and safety surrounding legally imported meat? He will know how much anxiety farmers and others have about that.

Mr. Brown: The regulatory regime is essentially the one that I inherited from the right hon. Lady when she was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. She will readily understand that the problem is not the regime itself but whether our enforcement of it is working as thoroughly as we who make the laws intend.
It is fair to say that there is a trade problem with import substitution. I am very conscious of that and want to do everything I can to help the domestic industry, consistent with doing the most important thing which, as the right hon. Lady will appreciate, is to isolate and extinguish the disease.
As for imported meat being the root cause of the problem, it is clear to everyone that something imported into this country must be the root cause of the problem

because we have had disease-free status for 20 years. The disease has not been hiding somewhere in the United Kingdom, only to emerge suddenly. Precisely where it came from is not known; work is continuing to find a single source, or a range of possible sources, and then to work back and see what new public policy decisions, if any, must be taken to ensure that we block that potential route of infectivity as well.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I, too, commend my right hon. Friend on his prompt action in trying to stop this terrible outbreak. What discussions is he having with the industry on possible insurance-based arrangements for consequential loss?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Discussions were opened with the industry—including, in particular, the NFU and the National Pig Association—as a result of the classical swine fever outbreak. Controlling diseases in pigs necessitates movement restrictions, which may well have to be placed on farms that do not actually have the disease and will never have it. Such restrictions are imposed entirely for reasons of disease containment. Because of the modern ways in which the industry works, that can have economic consequences for the farm businesses.
Who should pay for those losses? I am making it absolutely clear chat it is not the taxpayers" responsibility—no previous Government have ever thought that it was. However, it is fair to consider whether it is the responsibility of the industry as a whole to make some arrangement to compensate farms that are under movement restrictions for the burden that they bear on behalf of the whole of the industry—which, of course, has a vested interest in disease control. Those discussions, which are a result of the classical swine fever outbreak, are continuing.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am sure that the Minister will sympathise with the two farmers in my constituency who were the innocent victims of the outbreak which, sadly, started at a third farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall in my constituency. Both men were reaching retirement age and have seen their life"s work destroyed at a stroke. Those commuting into Newcastle this morning will have had the reality of the situation brought home to them at the sight of the 150 yd long funeral pyre of burning carcases by the main road leading into the city.
An animal welfare group based near Norwich first reported this farm and the conditions on it in mid-December. That led to an investigation by the RSPCA, but I understand that no further action was taken. There were subsequent visits to the farm by Northumberland trading standards officers and MAFF officials, yet nothing was done about the conditions at the time. Will the Minister thoroughly investigate that situation?

Mr. Brown: I have looked into that last point. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when veterinary officials inspected the farm, there was no trace of disease in the farmed animals. The chief veterinary officer has satisfied himself that that is the case. Nor were any welfare infringements discovered. As the hon. Gentleman rightly


pointed out, the inspection was made primarily for welfare and environmental reasons, rather than for reasons of disease control.
The hon. Gentleman"s constituents have my sympathy, and that of every right-minded person, for what they are being put through. He is absolutely right to say that the huge blaze at the edge of the motorway last night and in the early hours of this morning provided a highly visual reminder to those travelling into Newcastle of the consequences of this terrible outbreak.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: How should I respond to a farmer who exploded, saying that it would be grossly irresponsible of politicians to hold a general election, with people trampling around the countryside? What thought is being given to that serious issue?

Mr. Brown: I am appealing to members of the public to avoid unnecessary visits to farm premises, regardless of the reason or justification for them. As for the remainder of my hon. Friend"s remarks, I shall ensure that they are passed on to those who take more interest in those matters than I can.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister re-emphasise that he understands that we face not just an economic catastrophe for rural industries and a financial disaster for individual farmers, but a growing animal welfare problem, since beasts that should be at the slaughterhouse are accumulating on farms? How optimistic is the Minister that the discussions that he has mentioned will lead to controlled transportation—perhaps under licence; certainly supervised by the Meat Hygiene Service—from individual farm to slaughterhouse so that we can get the food chain moving again?
I welcome the statement made by the Minister on "Breakfast with Frost" yesterday that, if they remain disease free, the countries of Scotland and Northern Ireland could have the ban lifted early. What time scale do he and his colleagues envisage for that most desirable objective?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it may be possible at some future stage, although we most certainly have not reached that stage now, to regionalise the ban. The initial beneficiaries of such an approach would clearly be those areas that could demonstrate to our trading partners that they were free of foot and mouth disease and that measures were in place to keep them so. I have an open mind on whether that would be the correct approach for us to take. We shall have to see how the disease develops, since further cases from the primary source may remain to be reported. However, we may very well end up taking that approach.
On the food chain, I am conscious of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. I hope to be able to make an announcement soon, by which I mean within a matter of days. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that any responsible Government would want to keep animal welfare consequences closely under review. We must balance animal welfare considerations with disease control considerations, but disease control must be the

priority. If it is necessary to find an alternative route by which to deal with animal welfare problems, the Government will have to do so.

Ms Candy Atherton: May I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decisive action?
Farmers in Cornwall tell me that they are unable to obtain disinfectant. Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is an emerging problem, and will he act to resolve it?

Mr. Brown: The issue of disinfectant supplies was raised with me by the president of the NFU earlier today, and I am asking for urgent inquiries to be made to ensure that we have sufficient supplies of materials essential to helping control the outbreak.

Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister accept that farmers in my constituency, who are deeply apprehensive about the current position, will have been appalled to hear him say that, because the Government have to contribute 80 per cent. agrimonetary compensation, even with the massive war chest that they have built up by stealth taxes, they will not make that money available to farmers?
Secondly, on the legal reasons that the Minister mentioned, does he agree that, if there is any responsibility or any question of negligence on the part of officials as regards the place in Northumberland where the initial outbreak occurred, those officials should not invoke Crown immunity, and that consequential loss could thus be payable?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is on to entirely the wrong point, given the thrust of his final question. As for his first question, he should tell his constituents that the Labour Government have paid out about £630 million in agrimonetary compensation. The previous Conservative Government, whom he did not support as enthusiastically as he might have done, paid nothing at all in agrimonetary compensation. The state of the public finances is the result of good stewardship by the Labour Government; it ill behoves the Conservative party to tell us how such money should be spent.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I visited the MAFF website today, to find out what a pig infected with foot and mouth disease looked like—its snout looked very strange indeed. It is intriguing that the farmer at the centre of this—at the farm in Northumberland—was unable to spot the virus for so long. Is my right hon. Friend happy that farmers nationwide know how to spot the symptoms of this and other diseases? If they cannot do so, what educational programmes is he putting in place to ensure that such a horrific disease never takes hold again because of the ignorance of the people who should be looking after the animals?

Mr. Brown: We have not had the disease in this country for 20 years, so many people will not have seen it. The disease is called foot and mouth disease because that is the literal description of its early symptoms. As for the other matters that my hon. Friend raises, I hope he will understand that I do not answer them for pretty obvious reasons.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Minister pay tribute to the organisers of the countryside rally that


was due to take place on 18 March on taking the sensible decision to postpone that march? That could not have been an easy decision, but it is the right one in the circumstances.
The Minister says that he is not prepared to consider any consequential compensation. Does he accept that many abattoirs and auction markets throughout the country are currently operating at the margins? If they fall through, that could have even more damaging consequences for this country"s agriculture industry once foot and mouth disease is completely eradicated.

Mr. Brown: I am looking at what we can do to help, but I cannot, on behalf of the taxpayer, accept an open-ended commitment to compensate for the consequential losses arising from an outbreak of animal disease and the steps that the Government have to take to control it.
I have not requested the postponement of the countryside march, but I pay tribute to the organisers for having postponed it as a contribution to the national effort to control this foot and mouth outbreak. I congratulate them on the decision that they have made.

Mr. Mark Todd: Many contributions to this discussion have highlighted the cashflow problems for farmers and those in other sectors of the farming industry. Can we look at that matter, rather than compensation, as a key priority? It might be possible to consider ways in which loans and advances against future moneys payable into the sector could be brought forward so as to assist people who are currently in desperate trouble.
In the longer term, once we have eradicated this disease, may I urge my right hon. Friend to reflect on whether we need to examine further the mechanisms currently in place—intensive farming and increasingly large abattoirs that are ever further apart—and the possible contribution of such methods to the rapid spread of this disease?

Mr. Brown: I have already asked for the work that my hon. Friend requests—on whether current structures in the industry make us more vulnerable—to be done. He is absolutely right to ask for an examination of such matters, and he is also absolutely right to want to help. I have to be mindful of the state aid rules and of the cost to the British taxpayer of any commitment that I make, but I want to help and am looking very carefully at what the Government can properly do.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Minister recognise the devastating impact that the outbreaks could have on such a prime livestock-producing area as Northumberland? Although he cannot make an open-ended commitment, will he consider the interdependence of those farmers who are affected by the movement restrictions and the hauliers, traders and other rural businesses, whom he must take into account in future measures because of the outbreak"s effects? Although he cannot now comment on the rumours about whether airport pigswill was used in this case, surely we must be

certain that no airport or ship docking place anywhere in the country will provide pigswill or other animal feed now that the seriousness of the matter has been recognised.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is right; I must not comment on the specific case. More generally, he is absolutely right to point out the dangers to farmers in Northumberland and elsewhere. I am considering what I can do to help. A number of avenues are open to the Government, and I hope to have more to say about that in the future.

Angela Smith: It always comes as a surprise to some hon. Members to hear that there are farms in my constituency. Earlier today, I spoke to Mr. Ian Frood, who is a farmer and an NFU regional organiser for the area. He put to me points similar to those made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) about information and stressed how important it is that MAFF officials locally keep the NFU fully informed because they are better placed with local farmers to do away with the kind of rumours that circulate in these circumstances.
A further issue was raised with me by a farmer in my constituency. Today, a national newspaper reporter walked through his farm and knocked on his front door to ask questions about the outbreak, even though he is in an area where no cattle can be moved. That is completely irresponsible. My constituent did not take my advice and hose the reporter down with disinfectant, but, given the problems that we face, would it not be wise for reporters to realise that the best story for farmers is that there are no new outbreaks, and that all reporters and members of the public should act with the utmost responsibility?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on both points. I have already appealed to print journalists and those in the broadcast media to stay away from farms and, if they absolutely have to go on to farms, to ensure that they take the appropriate precautions. I have also asked those in the media organisations not to fly over the infected areas in helicopters. The virus is airborne, and stirring it up with helicopters is a very bad idea indeed, so I appeal again to people not to do it.
On information and input from the local NFU, my hon. Friend is on to a good point, which I discussed in some detail with the president of the NFU at our meeting earlier today. The NFU has offered information contacts, area by area, and we are putting in place a departmental structure to make full use of that because local knowledge can sometimes play a valuable part in helping to control the outbreak locally.

Mr. James Gray: Farmers in my constituency and in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), on whose behalf I also speak, will have been devastated by the announcement that the case in Bromham has been confirmed. They will have welcomed much of what the Minister has said today, but will he accept that although farmers and other people in the area accept the restrictions that he describes, many of them have no idea what to do? For example, those in the village of Lacock, which is a tourist attraction and 1 mile from Bromham, or in the town of Chippenham, which is covered by the restriction, do not have a clue about what the restrictions will mean.
Will he clarify that and find ways to pass information on to the public so that they know what they may or may not do?
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who requested a debate on the subject, the Minister said that he had no time for such a debate. Is it not a rich irony that the House will spend 10 hours tomorrow discussing foxhunting, but we will not have an opportunity to discuss this appalling catastrophe for the countryside?

Mr. Brown: It is not a question of not wanting to debate important countryside issues—in normal circumstances I am very willing to come to the House to take part in a sensible discussion of the issues. However, in the middle of a disease management problem the proportions of which are not yet properly understood, it would not be right to divert ministerial, administrative and, above all, veterinary resources away from controlling tie disease and into discussing it here. Perhaps we can hold a debate after the outbreak has been brought under control, and not in the middle of a rapidly changing situation
The hon. Gentleman"s other pint was perfectly legitimate. Many people earn their livelihood in the tourist industry and in areas that attract visitors. There are, of course, difficulties when such activities take place side by side with the livestock sector. All I can do is repeat the advice that I have given, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will echo it locally: the public should refrain from going on to livestock farms or near to farmed animals.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the decisive steps that he has taken to isolate and eliminate this dreadful disease in this country and on the actions that he has taken to ensure that the disease does not spread to other countries. That is in marked contrast to the attitude that the previous Government took to BSE. BSE has had incalculable consequences on world trade, particularly in third-world countries, but, if we consider the lessons that we can glean from that, is it not true that modern, intensive, globalised management grossly magnifies the risk of the spread of disease? Has anyone tried to calculate the cost-effectiveness of cheaper food when it is compared to the enormously increased risk of the spread of disease, considered whether we should nave huge global regulation to prevent the spread of disease or less intensive, less globalised food production?

Mr. Brown: The implications of the modern methods of agricultural production for the livestock industry and other processes further down the food chain are issues that I have asked my Department to consider. When we have its report, we shall consider the consequences for policy makers. Indeed, we may even want to debate them here. My hon. Friend says that we are trying to contain and then exterminate the problem and must not export it. He is absolutely right.

Mr. Tim Collins: No one in the House envies the Minister in his job, but we all wish him and his officials every possible success in what they are trying to do. That remains the case despite one or two of the slightly unfortunate partisan remarks that he has made today.
I wish to press the Minister on one issue. He talked about the possibility at least of providing new advice on the closure of footpaths and other points of access. He was quoted—possibly inaccurately—over the weekend as advising walkers to go into national parks instead of on to farm land. Parts of two national parks are in my constituency, so may I point out that 80 to 90 per cent. of the area of national parks is made up of farm land? I have received reports today that, unfortunately, very large numbers of people ignored the warnings and walked over livestock land this weekend. Will the Minister therefore work with the national park authorities to deal with that issue as part of the many other measures that he needs to put in place?

Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have time after time appealed for people not to go near farmed livestock. When I suggested that they visit a national park instead, it was of course implicit in my remarks that I meant national parks that do not have farmed livestock. I understand his point, but there are areas where it is perfectly possible to go for a walk in the country without going near farmed animals. There should be no disagreement on that point. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the measures that the Government are taking.

Mr. David Drew: It is impossible to overestimate the gravity of the situation facing us. In his responses to Labour Members, my right hon. Friend has said that it might be possible to undertake a wide-ranging investigation into animal health, the problems that we have come to realise recently and their link to intensive farming. Will he go as far as to say that he will include other parts of the food chain in that investigation, so that farmers are not singled out? Other parts of the food chain may bear some responsibility for the risks that we now face.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. The study that I have asked for does not focus exclusively on farming practices; it is designed to consider more broadly whether the industry"s current structure, throughout the supply chain and including the catering sector and export industries, makes us more vulnerable to disease outbreaks than the way in which it operated some years ago.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I do not think that I have heard any Opposition Member criticise the work of the admirable state veterinary service or, indeed, that of MAFF to contain this wicked disease. It is therefore all the more surprising that the Minister should cavil at the prospect of a debate in Opposition time on such a fundamental matter affecting the survival of agriculture in this country.
Having said that, may I ask the Minister to take a more robust line on footpaths? I urge him to work with local councils to enable farmers to shut paths if they feel it necessary to do so, because people are tramping across those paths without disinfectant, and, when asked not to do so, are often extremely abusive to the farmers concerned.

Mr. Brown: I would be grateful to the Opposition if they could postpone their debate and let me and my officials get the disease under control. The hon.
Gentleman made a perfectly fair point about footpaths. We have that matter under review, and I anticipate announcing further measures shortly.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his immediate introduction of robust measures. That contrasts with the action taken on BSE, which was always too little, too late. It is much wiser to take vigorous action from day 1.
If the newspaper reports are accurate, the living conditions of pigs on the farm in Northumberland give serious cause for concern. It defies belief that the farmer involved could not recognise the symptoms of foot and mouth when they were well advanced—seven or 14 days into the outbreak on his premises. MAFF"s animal health inspectors inspected the farm two or three times in December and January, but apparently did not comment on how bad the animal welfare conditions were. Do we not need a full inquiry into animal welfare, particularly for intensively farmed livestock, including pigs and poultry? There is something badly amiss here.

Mr. Brown: The veterinary inspectors" reports on the farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall are consistent with what we know about the incubation time of the disease. The chief vet is satisfied that the disease was not present on the farm when the inspections took place. The whole issue is being considered by the appropriate authorities, and it would be wrong for me to say more about that now in the House.

Mr. Anthony Steen: My constituency abuts that of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). As south Devon is a peninsula, has the Minister considered asking local authorities to put matting on all roads leading into the area? Is he aware that farmers are having problems because disinfectant supplies are drying up?
Will the Minister say something not only about national parks but about the south Devon coastline, which has a heritage trail that people have continued to walk during the weekend and today? Those people, who include farmers from Norfolk, have walked on livestock farms.

Mr. Brown: As a result of the NFU president"s representations to me earlier today, I have asked for inquiries to be made so that we can be certain that we have sufficient stocks of disinfectant. That is a perfectly proper point for the hon. Gentleman to raise.
It is hard to make regulations that enable people to enjoy the countryside while ensuring that they stay away from livestock and other farmed animals. However, I appeal to people to do so. The most important point is to make sure that we do not spread the disease, and then we can contain and extinguish it. As the disease is primarily spread by the movement of animals, we have halted that practice so that we can isolate and extinguish it. I appeal to people to stay away from farm animals. Although it is a more remote possibility, there is a chance that such a virulent strain of the disease will be spread by people and vehicles.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Since the 1967 outbreak, fundamental changes have altered the risks that the farming community and society face. People

are more mobile, animals are moved more frequently, vets and farmers see the early evidence of this virulent disease infrequently and, indeed, some of the animals at risk are kept as pets. Although information on the MAFF website about the more advanced stages of the illness is good, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that farmers and veterinary practitioners receive sufficient scientific training on the early stages of the condition? The Leahurst faculty of Liverpool university"s large veterinary school is in my constituency and has a worldwide reputation. However, I suspect that a generation of veterinary scientists has left there without seeing the disease in its very early stages.

Mr. Brown: I am satisfied that the veterinary profession can identify the disease. I think it is harder for farmers to identify because we have not seen it in this country for 20 years. Nevertheless, we have a two-way method of control. In addition to our vets following up the cases that might have got the disease from contact with infected areas, we rely on farmers an I their private vets to ring the Ministry and prioritise what they believe are suspicious cases. My hon. Friend is correct to say that the vulnerable animals are sometimes kept as domestic pets.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: There is a considerable sense of foreboding and anxiety in Anglesey because there is a suspected case of foot and mouth at the abattoir in Gaerwen I understand that tests have taken place. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the results will be available? If they confirm the first case in Wales, will that be announced by his officials or the Welsh Assembly, or will a joint statement be issued?
Does the right hon. Gentleman know about the reports of people walking in Snowdonia at the weekend, although there were requests not to do so? There will be considerable support in Wales for the temporary closure of footpaths and rights of way. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that farmers in Anglesey in particular are concerned about the operation of the over-30-months rule and the delay in taking animals to market. What hope can he give to those farmers, bearing in mind that the animals might be more than 30 months old when the restrictions are lifted?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right. Those people who are proposing to submit animals under the over-30-months rule could be caught by the restrictions on movement. As we reshape those restrictions—although that is conditional on our getting a firm grip on the outbreak of the disease—I promise to keep the over-30-months scheme and those affected by it at the forefront of my mind. I am afraid that I cannot say more than that now.
There is close co-operation between my Department and the officials who work in the agriculture section of the Welsh Assembly. There is also close communication between myself and my counterpart in the Welsh Assembly. We are trying to take a common approach to the temporary closure of public rights of access. What has happened in Snowdonia is one of the matters at the forefront of our minds as we consider this difficult issue. I am grateful to people who have taken heed of appeals not to go near farms livestock or animals, but I am aware that not everyone has responded in that way. We must consider what else we have to do.
I know that the suspected case will be a cause of great anxiety to the hon. Gentleman"s constituents. It is a tentative hope rather than anything firmer, but we do not yet have a positive finding—at least, I am not aware of it. The passage of time gives more grounds for optimism in that local case; it takes longer to confirm a negative than to confirm a positive.

Mr. John Maples: We have heard what the Minister has had to say about compensation for consequential loss, and we might want to return to the issue when we see for how long the ban on movements continues, but he could do too specific things immediately to help farmers, who are already in a difficult financial position, who suffer such loss. One of those things, for which many have asked, is to claim the agrimonetary compensation. I think that the £202 million must be claimed by the end of April, if at all. More than three quarters of it would go to the livestock sector. The Minister might point out to the Chancellor that our friends in the European Union pick up 20 per cent. of the costs of very few public spending programmes.
Secondly, when the Minister this evening meets our friends in the EU, will he suggest that farmers who are having to keep animals on their farms for longer than planned might be allowed temporarily to graze them on set-aside land in order to alleviate tin problem of having to buy additional food? That was permitted during the BSE crisis. It is something for which the right hon. Gentleman could ask which would cost nothing.

Mr. Brown: I am looking at whether there are derogations that we could seek from the Commission in the management of the current outbreak that would give some help and assistance to those who are caught by it. I have a range of points, such as the one that the hon. Gentleman makes, that I want to take up informally with Commissioner Fischler before we make formal representations. I understand the hon Gentleman"s point about agrimonetary compensation. I remember him as a Treasury Minister; I wonder whether he would have taken the same view of the 19 per cent. EU contribution and the domestic contribution of only 81 per cent. when he was at the Treasury.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Although the right hon. Gentleman deserves unqualified support for the measures that he has taken—he has received it from those of us on the Conservative Benches—does he accept that he would better create a mood of national unity if he treated this House with a little more respect? His answers on appearing before Parliament have been disgraceful. To suggest that we should not have a debate is quite wrong. Will he bear it in mind that, when this country was at war, Churchill constantly reported to the House? Does he remember his former colleague Lord Robertson, former Secretary of State for Defence, reporting to the House day after day when we were engaged in hostilities? The Minister"s prime duty is to be answerable to the House. Will he therefore reconsider his ill-judged remarks and give a categorical undertaking that he will make regular statements at that Dispatch Box?

Mr. Brown: No, I will not. My priority is to confront and extinguish the disease. The hon. Gentleman"s remarks are distinctly unhelpful. I have always treated this House

with courtesy and restraint, but to haul Ministers here as part of an Opposition day debate when we will be in the middle of disease control seems highly irresponsible.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I thank the Minister, his Department and the veterinary service for the very prompt response to this hideous virus. Is he aware, however, that Thirsk auction mart—and, I understand, many auction marts throughout the country—has received a very confusing briefing from the Meat and Livestock Commission? Entitled "UK Foot and Mouth Update No 1", last week"s MLC briefing said that the foot and mouth export ban will be in place for six months
after the last confirmed outbreak has been fully dealt with".
That is totally confusing; it seems to contradict advice from MAFF and the Commission that there will be only a one-month export ban. Will the Minister please explain the provenance of that briefing? Did it come from his Department? Will be please eradicate the confusion today?
May I also ask the Minister to take the prompt legal action to close footpaths which he said he is considering? Confusion arises when livestock are inside and the public simply do not know that livestock are present.

Mr. Brown: On the issue of footpaths, I give the hon. Lady the assurance she seeks. I have the matter under active consideration with the devolved authorities and I hope to make a further announcement shortly.
As the hon. Lady probably knows, I do not have direct responsibility for the activities of the MLC. She asks about the likely duration of the export bans. It will differ, depending on whether European Union trade or bilateral trade with third countries is involved, because all have slightly different rules of their own. However, we shall never get the bans lifted until we have disease-free status—confirmed disease-free status. In future, we might be able to get the ban regionalised so that parts of the United Kingdom can export again, but it is premature to speculate along those lines today. We simply do not know whether there are animals still incubating the condition, so further quarantine and disease-control measures are required.

Mr. Owen Paterson: I believe that the Minister terribly misjudged his response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). At a time of national crisis, which this is, the Minister"s real duty is to report to the House at every necessary opportunity.
None the less, I thank the Minister"s private office because, on Saturday afternoon, its staff were most helpful in arranging a licence to be given to my constituent Mr. Richard Bradshaw, who had 17 decomposing carcases in his yard and could not move them without a licence. However, this morning, anomalies have been revealed in the regime for fallen stock and casualties, in that Mr. Bradshaw has been told that he cannot move cattle that have an OTM22 form; although they have been deemed healthy enough for human consumption, the animals must be left on the farm to decompose for seven days. The arrangements have been made in haste and the Minister is caught on Morton"s fork. Will he give me a clear answer tomorrow on how casualties will be dealt with while the crisis lasts?

Mr. Brown: As well as dealing with the problems of the hon. Gentleman"s constituent, my private office now


has to help to prepare for the debate, as do veterinary authorities and senior officials in the Ministry. I repeat that it is distinctly unhelpful to try to make me do things in addition to bearing down on the disease. Nevertheless, I shall ensure that the perfectly proper point the hon. Gentleman makes about how fallen stock and casualties are dealt with is addressed. He is right to say that we have been licensing movements under very strictly controlled conditions to deal with the problem, but complications arise in connection with issuing general licences for normal disposal routes: because they go from farm to farm, such established routes provide a means by which the disease might be spread.

Iraq (No-fly Zones)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement about coalition operations to enforce the no-fly zones over Iraq.
Ten years ago today, we celebrated the success of Operation Desert Storm, the coalition operation to expel Saddam Hussein"s forces from Kuwait. The contribution of the United Kingdom, which included the deployment of 50,000 service personnel, was a significant one on which we can look back with immense pride.
Since the end of the Gulf conflict, the overall aim of the policy adopted by successive Governments has been to contain the threat to regional security posed by Saddam Hussein"s Iraq. That policy has been successful: without our efforts, Saddam would have been free to maintain and develop his weapon; of mass destruction and conventional military capability, and free to bully and threaten his neighbours with impunity, as he did in the past.
A further aim of our policy has been to limit Saddam" s ability to kill and terrorise his own people. That is why we have conducted patrols of the no-fly zones since the early 1990s in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 688, which demanded an end to his brutal repression. The zones have served a vital humanitarian purpose over the past decade in constraining Saddam" s ability to carry out such repression, particularly in relation to the Shias and the Kurds.
The patrols are justified in international law as a legitimate response to prevent a grave humanitarian crisis. Without them, Saddam would be free, as he was prior to their establishment, to use aircraft and helicopter gunships against innocent civilians. The humanitarian consequences would be as unconscionable as they were in 1991. Many tens of thousands would be displaced from their homes, thousands would lose their lives, perhaps—as happened in 1988 at Halabja—following the use of chemical weapons.
Since January 1999, Saddam" s air defence units have made sustained and concerted efforts to shoot down United Kingdom and United States aircraft. During that period, there have been more than 1,200 attempts to target them, using surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery. Coalition aircraft are legally authorised to respond to those, attacks in self-defence. They do so entirely in accordance with international law, attacking only those military facilities that contribute, as part of the Iraqi integrated air defence system, to the threat to coalition aircraft.
Military commanders must manage the risk to service personnel. Over recent weeks, the Iraqis have significantly increased their efforts, amounting to a qualitative and quantitative increase in the threat. In January, there were more surface-to-air missile attacks than in the whole of 2000. The Iraqis have used new tactics, including the use of radars and command centres located outside the southern zone to cue offensive systems within it. That threat to our service personnel is real and present.
The operation on the evening of 16 February was therefore planned and carried out against that background. It was a proportionate response in self-defence, taken solely to reduce the risk to our aircrew carrying out routine humanitarian patrols of the southern no-fly zone.
As such, it was entirely in keeping with all such operations conducted over the period since January 1999, when Iraq started attacking our patrols. The operation was planned and cleared by Ministers on both sides of the Atlantic. Targets were carefully selected and precision-guided weapons used to minimise and, if at all possible, avoid any risk of civilian casualties.
Six targets were engaged, comprising elements of the Iraqi integrated air defence system, including military radar, command and communications sites. Five were north of the zone; all were directly involved in threatening coalition aircraft. Aircraft conducting patrols of the northern no-fly zone have previously engaged targets south of the 36th parallel, but this was the first occasion on which coalition aircraft had attacked targets outside the southern no-fly zone—that is, above the 33rd parallel—since Operation Desert Fox.
RAF participation included four Tornado GR1 strike aircraft, supported by two Tornado F 3 air defence aircraft and two VC10 tankers. A Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft was also airborne at the time. All our aircraft returned safely, as did those from the United States. The operation was a success. Both weapons dropped by the RAF hit their intended target, a military communications site. Overall, we are confident that the coalition caused significant disruption to the Iraqi integrated air defence system, degrading its ability to threaten our aircrew. We will, of course, monitor the situation very carefully over the coming weeks.
There have been Iraqi allegations of civilian casualties. No military action is without risk, and we deeply regret casualties, if any were caused. We have no means of verifying Iraqi claims, but we learned long ago to distrust them. In 1999, for example, Iraq claimed on some 30 occasions that there were civilian casualties on days when coalition aircraft did not actually release any weapons, and on several days when they were not even patrolling over Iraq. We know that, on a number of occasions, Saddam has alleged civilian casualties when only military personnel have been injured.
The operation was conducted in response to a deliberate escalation on the part of the Iraqis. Our action does not represent a change in policy. RAF aircrew undertook a difficult and dangerous mission with great skill and great bravery. Faced with a substantial increase in the threat in recent weeks, it was right that we took the minimum necessary steps to reduce that threat.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: First, let me thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving me a copy of the statement in advance, to assist me in my response. May I make it clear from the outset, on behalf of the Opposition, that we support the decision to carry out the air strikes? I disagree fundamentally with those who say that the strikes were provocative and will only make matters worse. I agree with the Secretary of State that, while we seriously regret any civilian casualties, the figures for such casualties, as given by Saddam Hussein, are not necessarily to be trusted.
I should like to pay tribute to the RAF and other service men in the Gulf. The events of the past few weeks have clearly shown us that they continue to risk their lives in the service of their country and in support of its allies. The House owes them a debt of gratitude for that service alone.
Whatever anyone says, there is no question but that the weapons" radars were targeting allied aircraft, as the Secretary of State said. When I was in the United States, that was made clear to me, and it has also been clear from briefings over here. I understand that, apart from the radars, missiles and anti-aircraft guns were fired in the last few weeks. Will the Secretary of State clarify that? Admittedly those weapons may not have been as accurate, because the Iraqis kept switching their radars off, but will the Secretary of State confirm that our aircraft were genuinely under threat in the period preceding the strikes?
It makes no difference if the sites that were attacked were outside the no-fly zone, because the Iraqis were targeting aircraft flying within the no-fly zone. That point has often been missed. Those sites therefore became legitimate targets. Does the Secretary of State agree that those who talk about heightened tension in the area miss the point that it is Saddam Hussein who destabilises the whole region and that he alone creates the problem to which we have to react strongly?
Does the Secretary of State agree, and will be say so before the House, that Saddam Hussein has continued to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them through ballistic missiles? Although there have been many reports on that from the UK and the US, I was intrigued to learn that, at the weekend, German intelligence was reported as showing that Iraq is now capable of producing nuclear weapons within the next three years. That intelligence also confirmed that Saddam Hussein continues to work on his biological capability and can produce such weapons at short notice, should he require to do so. Does not all of that confirm the view of Richard Butler, ex-head of the United Nations Special Commission, who made it clear that that capability continues to grow, regardless of sanctions?
I want to press the Secretary of State on that point. As someone who has fully supported the sanctions regime and the no-fly zone—I do not vary from that—let me ask him this: does he not agree that there is a problem over the implementation and effectiveness of the policy as it stands? Will he confirm that some nations, including one or two that are members of the European Union, do not appear to wish to stand by the sanctions? Regardless of the fact that they signed up to them, they continue to breach them. Does he not agree that the reaction of some of his European Union partners to the bombing is regrettable? Is it not regrettable that they were not able to support the action, and does that not throw some light on the fact that they are still unable to give full support? Is the Government"s position on the Euro defence force not thrown into relief, as they have had to act, not for the first time, with the United States?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that Saddam Hussein is using nations in Europe and elsewhere, including those that are proliferating weapons of mass destruction for hard cash, to bypass sanctions and grow his threat? I was concerned that, during a television interview yesterday, the Secretary of State seemed to indicate that there is a difference of opinion between the US and the UK on the overall purpose of our policy on Iraq. Will he clarify that? He indicated that British policy stopped short of any involvement in toppling Saddam Hussein. I am aware that that has been a continuing policy. However, given that we know with whom we are dealing and that Saddam Hussein has demonstrated on


many occasions that he abides by no treaties, has no regard for human life and continues to regard himself as a legitimate threat to others in the region, is it not time to consider whether it is still feasible to deal with him as we have so far tried to do? Is it not fair—the US is perhaps now coming to terms with this—to try to deal, not with him, but with what we do ultimately to replace him, and find another regime that will be more peaceable, reasonable and less threatening in the region?

Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. I shall endeavour to deal with the various points that he has raised.
I made it clear that there was a change in both the quality and the quantity of the threat to our aircrew. During January, there were as many attacks on our aircrew and aircraft as there had been throughout 2000. We judged that it was right to make efforts to protect aircrew during their legitimate and lawful patrols over the southern no-fly zone. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that Saddam alone is responsible for the situation. He is the author of the policy that leads to the attacks on our aircrew. We understand that he offers a substantial bonus to anyone who is capable of bringing down a coalition aircraft.
I accept the hon. Gentleman"s observations about the importance of identifying precisely what Saddam Hussein is capable of producing in the way of weapons of mass destruction. That is why we were so determined, as part of the negotiations leading to UN Security Council resolution 1284, that an effective system of inspection should be in place. It is important that we should be able to inspect whatever it is that Iraq is trying to produce, given its history, our suspicions and the revelations that are made from time to time.
I accept that there is criticism of the effectiveness of certain sanctions. That is why we consistently review them to try to find ways of making them still more effective in damaging Saddam Hussein"s regime, rather than allowing them to be targeted against the people of Iraq, with whom we have no quarrel.
I resist the hon. Gentleman"s suggestion that there is a difference of opinion with the United States. Our regime-change policy is that of successive British Governments, and the hon. Gentleman knows that full well. In relation to the television interview, that is the only area where there is a difference of opinion between this Government and the United States Government. It is a difference of opinion that has been shared by successive United Kingdom Governments. There is no other difference in policy between the two countries.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the United Nations charter explicitly prohibits military action by one country against another without the authority of the Security Council, which has never authorised either the no-fly zones or the bombing? Is it not clear that, for that reason, any persons killed in Iraq could in law be regarded as victims of international terrorism, if not war crimes, and that by following American policy, Britain is absolutely isolated in the international community? Not one other country supports the policy—except for Israel, which has weapons of mass destruction, has invaded the Lebanon and is persecuting the Palestinians.
Is it not true that after 10 years of the policy which the Secretary of State praises, Saddam is stronger than he has ever been and has more support among his neighbours, whom the Government claim he threatens? Has the time not come to end sanctions and open proper peace negotiations to enable the Palestinians, the Israelis, the Iraqis and their neighbours to be brought to the table, which is the only way in which problems of this sort have ever been satisfactorily dealt with in the past?

Mr. Hoon: I do not agree with my right hon. Friend"s interpretation of international law. The legal position is that we are entitled to patrol the no-fly zones for humanitarian reasons. We are there to protect people on the ground, whose condition would be significantly damaged if we were not present. That deals also with my right hon. Friend"s second point, which was about whether Saddam is not is not stronger. Had we not taken the action that we have over the past 10 years, Saddam Hussein would undoubtedly have been still stronger and still capable of threatening his own people and other peoples in the region. Our policy has certainly improved the condition of people, not least in the northern no-fly zone, where they have been able to go about their lives without interference by Saddam Hussein"s regime. In the southern no-fly zone, people are undoubtedly in a much better position than they would have been if we had not pursued our policy.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I begin by saying that the Secretary of State is right to assert that whenever British forces are deployed it is the Government"s duty to take every possible step to protect them? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Liberal Democrat Members have supported military action when necessary against Iraq since the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein about 10 and a half years ago. He will know that I have raised with him and his predecessor the fundamental question, which is whether RAF aircraft should be operating over southern Iraq. Resolution 688 does not give express authority, and there are widespread doubts about the legality of the operations, not least in the Arab capitals, whose political support we urgently require to maintain a coalition of political opinion against Saddam Hussein.
Is it not the case that air operations have not had the effect of protecting Shias from ground operations by Iraqi forces? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, for some weeks prior to the air strikes, the Ministry of Defence was considering withdrawing RAF aircraft from the southern no-fly zone operations?
Does not this all underscore the urgent need for a review of Government policy towards Iraq, including a review of a sanctions regime that is withering on the vine? It has had no effect on Saddam Hussein, nor on his programmes of manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. It has given him a heaven-sent propaganda weapon, which he has used to justify the brutal repression of the Iraqi people. Can we not now accept that non-military sanctions should be lifted, and that a policy of containment can be continued with the credible threat of military action, but with a sanctions regime confined to military and dual-use equipment?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his support on behalf of the Liberal


Democrat party. The legal justification for the patrolling of the no-fly zones does not rest on Security Council resolution 688. That has not been the Government"s position. In terms of humanitarian justification, we are entitled to patrol the no-fly zones to prevent a grave humanitarian crisis. That is the legal justification in international law. It does not rest on resolution 688, although that resolution supports the position that we have adopted.
Were we not patrolling the no-fly zone in the south, the position of the Shias on the ground would be significantly worsened. That is strong justification for the action that we are taking. We have not contemplated withdrawing RAF aircraft, but it is right that we constantly review the operation of our forces, as we constantly review sanctions. We need to ensure that sanctions are effective and are having the consequences that we desire. We recognise that in some areas they are not working as we would hope. It is important that we target sanctions still more effectively against Saddam Hussein"s regime, not against Iraqi people.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is it not weird that, 10 years after the liberation of Kuwait, when we recall the murder, torture, rape, looting and pillaging that accompanied Saddam Hussein"s annexation of Kuwait, there should be Members who still seem to have greater sympathy for the murderer than for those he murdered? Is it not a fact that, whatever fraying there may be of sanctions, if we had not taken action and if we were not continuing to do so, which my right hon. Friend has said is wholly within international law, Saddam Hussein would by now be in occupation of at least parts of Saudi Arabia, parts of Iran and other parts of the middle east? When Members talk about "international terrorism", it is not the Government and our United States ally who are responsible for such terrorism, but a killer who has no hesitation in killing his own people in vast numbers. It is about time that people thought before they uttered ridiculous and stupid statements, which they stick to after 10 years.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. I simply add to his observations the fact that very recently, Saddam Hussein repeated his claim to the territory of Kuwait and made it clear that, given the opportunity, he would again invade that country and subject it to appalling atrocity. Many Kuwaitis are still missing as a result of the original Invasion more than 10 years ago. I agree with my right hon. Friend, and he is right to make his points so sharply

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman please pass my respects and admiration to the Royal Air Force crews who so bravely pressed home those militarily necessary attacks? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to give serious consideration to reforming the sanctions regime? It is imperative that we get the weapons inspectors back into Baghdad to assess clearly the continuing weapons programme of that wicked man.
In order to get the weapons inspectors back, we should offer the carrot of a revised sanctions regime along the lines proposed by the nearly-always-right spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. And learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). Does the Secretary of

State agree that we should maintain a vigorous sanctions programme on all military imports, but that we should drop sanctions on all non-military imports in exchange for getting the weapons inspectors back into Baghdad?

Mr. Hoon: I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman"s congratulations to the RAF crews involved, who conducted the operation with considerable skill and precision and very great bravery.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman"s observations about the sanctions regime, I invite him to study carefully Security Council resolution 1284. It is a long, detailed statement by the international community setting out the points that the hon. Gentleman makes—the opportunity that is available to Saddam Hussein to have sanctions lifted, in the event of his allowing a proper inspection regime into Iraq. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied by the terms of resolution 1284, and I hope that he is not suggesting that we should further dilute 1284 by attempting to draw up a new resolution.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On my way to the House from Heathrow airport this morning, I called at 16 Princes Gate, which is the embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Iranian ambassador confirmed that his Government—who, heaven knows, have more reason than anybody else on the planet to loathe Saddam, after the million lost in the Iran-Iraq war—are against sanctions and are against bombing, partly on the ground that, far from weakening Saddam, they strengthen him.
May I put a direct question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who referred to the bullying of neighbours? With the exception of the al-Sabah family in Kuwait, can he name one organisation or Government in the Arab world who support the recent bombing and the sanctions policy?

Mr. Hoon: It would be sufficient that the one Government of the one country that has been subject to an invasion in the past 10 years still remain fearful, given Saddam Hussein"s recent remarks about his territorial claim to Kuwait. I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not recognise that. I am sure that he did not condone the invasion of Kuwait, and I am sure that he would not condone it if it were repeated. Without the policy of containment of Saddam Hussein, which has operated successfully over the past 10 years, there would be the fear that the atrocities perpetrated against the people of Kuwait would be repeated.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: So long as the no-fly areas exist, it must be right for military action to be taken to safeguard allied aircraft. I have no criticism of what was done in that regard. However, as one who played a modest part, as Minister of State, in the formulation of policy with regard to sanctions, I am becoming very uneasy about their moral base.
The sanctions were put in place to get rid of Saddam, or at least to contain him. If we are honest with ourselves, we must acknowledge that they have not in any way damaged Saddam, but have substantially damaged the people of Iraq. I would like to think that it might be possible for us further to examine the sanctions regime so


that the consequences are narrowly confined to excluding military and other material, and do not weigh down so oppressively on the ordinary people of Iraq.

Mr. Hoon: I understand the proper way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made his point, not least given his responsibility formerly for developing the sanctions regime, but he will know the difficulties of precisely targeting an effective sanctions regime, as he suggests, and explaining to people the effect of the sanctions. For example, since the end of the Gulf conflict, food and medicine imports have never been prohibited at all by sanctions, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows. Saddam Hussein and his regime have been responsible for preventing food and medicine from being properly distributed among the Iraqi people.
I accept a degree of responsibility, in the sense that it is important that Governments who are successfully policing sanctions should explain the effect of those sanctions and make it clear that the responsibility for the suffering of the Iraqi people lies firmly in the hands of Saddam Hussein, not in the hands of the international community, which is seeking to do what the right hon. and learned Gentleman describes: to ensure that sanctions target military equipment and do not affect the people of Iraq.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is not the real reason why Saddam Hussein has the resource and the confidence to attack coalition military equipment the fact that the coalition powers, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States of America, have failed properly to enforce the sanctions regime? For the past six years—some of us have protested about the matter for six years, in both London and Washington—oil revenues, illegal under the terms of the United Nations resolution, have been raised through the export of oil into Turkey and through the Gulf under the watchful eyes of the Americans and the coalition powers.
Is not that money which Saddam Hussein has raised now funding the attacks on our resources and his programme to develop weapons of mass destruction? We are to blame. It is our responsibility. We did not properly enforce the sanctions regime. We have been telling Parliament that for the past six years, and the same has been said in the US Congress, but nothing has been done.

Mr. Hoon: I do not accept responsibility in quite the way that my hon. Friend sets it out, but I agree with him that there are difficulties about the enforcement of the sanctions regime. That is why, as I told the House earlier, it is important that we continue to monitor and review the effectiveness of the sanctions and find more successful ways of making them bite on the regime, not on the Iraqi people.
I do not accept that there has been a lack of resolve on the part of the United Kingdom or the United States in seeking to enforce sanctions. Indeed, tribute has been properly paid to British service personnel for their bravery in flying over the no-fly zones. Equal tribute ought to be paid to British service personnel who are responsible for the enforcement of the sanctions. They, too, conduct difficult operations, sometimes in awkward circumstances, and it is right that they should be praised for their efforts.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Many of us greatly admire the courage and professionalism of the RAF and

fully accept the legitimacy of the actions last week. None the less, we are beginning to wonder what the endgame is. The concern in many Arab capitals has nothing to do with the UN Security Council and everything to do with the huge growth in weapons of mass destruction capability, which it is widely known in the Arab world Saddam Hussein is developing. In pursuing our policy towards that evil and increasingly powerful man, the overriding consideration must be how we can rebuild the coalition, which ma become all the more important as he gets more and more powerful.

Mr. Hoon: On the endgame, I again refer the hon. Gentleman to Security Council resolution 1284, which was concluded after months—at times it seemed like years—of negotiation and careful, thoughtful and considered diplomacy. It sets out an opportunity for Iraq to return to the international community should Saddam Hussein and his regime choose to accept it. Allowing inspections can lead to a suspension of sanctions leading ultimately to their removal, but that depends on Saddam Hussein"s willingness to co-operate with the international community in allaying our understandable suspicions about his efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. That is, indeed, an endgame—it provides a perfectly proper way for Saddam Hussein to end the present stalemate.

Caroline Flint: May I declare an interest, as I was in Kuwait a short while ago with an all-party delegation? When we visited the RAF base in Kuwait, we were presented with clear information about how seriously RAF personnel take their responsibilities in identifying legitimate targets and carrying out their activities, for which they are accountable when the Tornados return home.
While I was in Kuwait, Uday, the son of Saddam Hussein, released a press statement to the media in the Arabic world, saying that all the maps in Iraq were being redrawn to include Kuwait within Iraqi borders. More than 600 prisoners of war, including women and children, were seized from Kuwait and taken into Iraq. Saddam Hussein has refused to ease the suffering of the parents and families by telling them whether their relatives are alive or well. Is there anything that we can do in terms of sanctions? I understand that there is a freeze on Iraqi assets abroad, but if we are to make sanctions bite, can we do anything more to uncover the whereabouts of the tens of billions of pounds that I understand to be held overseas? Can we take action to find that money and ensure that it is frozen?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments and I congratulate her on making the effort to go to Kuwait to See our aircrew, who, as other hon. Members have said perform a remarkable task in very difficult circumstances. I encourage hon. Members to go and see for themselves the efforts that are made by our aircrew in support of the policy of the British Government and the coalition. A determined effort is being made to make sanctions more effective, especially with the new US Administration, who are carefully considering ways of targeting sanctions still more effectively. I shall certainly


consider my hon. Friend"s suggestion, as we are determined that sanctions should bite effectively on the regime and not harm the people of Iraq.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It would help me to include more of the hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye if questions could now be kept much more concise.

Mr. Martin Bell: The Secretary of State rightly drew attention to the success of the military operation 10 years ago. I was there. I rejoiced in it and I was a witness of it. But that operation had proper backing in the Arab world and the international community. Where are our friends this time, outside Washington and Jerusalem? Is the right hon. Gentleman not concerned about our friendlessness in the world as we pursue this course?

Mr. Hoon: I have answered that question already. The hon. Gentleman was in Kuwait, and there is no doubt that Kuwait strongly supports the action that we have taken. Indeed, it provides a base from which RAF crews and pilots can operate.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: It stretches credulity to say that the bombing is a humanitarian act to save Kurds given that the Turks, our NATO allies, are killing Kurds and that we are sending back to Baghdad Iraqi Kurds who have sought asylum. It simply does not make sense—it is a mess. As we are in a hole internationally, is it not time for us to stop digging and do as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) suggests—start talking? Even if we do so through a third party, please let us start talking and stop killing.

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has rightly made a reputation in the House for concern about the rights of minority groups and organisations both in this country and around the world. I am surprised that she is not prepared to recognise the rights of, say, the people of Kuwait and of people who live on the ground in the northern and southern no-fly zones. That is why we are there and are protecting those people. My hon. Friend knows from the facts of Saddam Hussein"s regime that if we were not there, they would suffer the sort of damage and harm that they have suffered in the past. However much she wishes otherwise, that is the reality of the circumstances with which we have to deal.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Some of us have believed for some time that a grave error was made 10 years ago when the coalition farces were stopped so soon, before they had the opportunity to cut off Saddam Hussein"s republican guard north-east of Basra. Some of us have believed for 10 years that there can be no peace in the middle east while Saddam Hussein remains in power. From what the Secretary of State has said, I think that he rather agrees with that view. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees that Saddam Hussein is the problem, not Iraq or the Iraqi people, and if the new US Administration intend to act more personally against Saddam and his regime, will the Government"s policy be to support the US Administration in deposing Saddam?

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we are to be criticised for bombing Iraq, it might be more helpful to target more closely Saddam"s palaces and Saddam himself?

Mr. Hoon: As it is the 10th anniversary of the end of the Gulf war, today is perhaps an appropriate time to be reflecting on those events. I can only remind the hon. Gentleman of what the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said yesterday, I think, in Kuwait. He said that he had not judged it appropriate to continue the effort further, and argued that it would not have been justified in international law. Furthermore, he said that there was no military argument for continuing to attack Iraq once the legitimate objective of freeing Kuwait had been achieved. I think that that is a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman"s observations. It has been a consistent policy of United Kingdom Governments not to work for regime change in the manner that the hon. Gentleman describes. I make it absolutely clear that we are convinced that Iraq would be a much better and safer place without Saddam Hussein and his regime, but that is a matter for the Iraqi people.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the debate is not about the nature or malevolence of Saddam Hussein"s regime, but about the most effective way of building broad support for controlling it? The problem with UN Security Council resolution 1284 is that Saddam"s regime has no interest in compliance, so it is not a way forward. Does my right hon. Friend accept that we cannot achieve a proper resolution with the UK and the US alone? Is a thoroughgoing review being conducted across the MOD and the Foreign Office to consider how to rebuild broad support for an effective way forward in dealing with Iraq as part of a broader middle east policy?

Mr. Hoon: The difficulty with my hon. Friend"s argument is that she is describing precisely the process that led to the formulation of Security Council resolution 1284. An enormous and determined diplomatic effort was made by the international community to achieve the broad consensus that my hon. Friend fairly describes. I was involved in that process for a short time as a Foreign Office Minister, so I can assure her that every effort was made to solicit opinion from around the world in order to achieve precisely the degree of consensus for which she argues. If she is suggesting that we should start that process again and repeat it, all that I would invite her to consider, after looking carefully at resolution 1284, is whether we would achieve anything different at the end of it. The resolution provides an opportunity for Saddam Hussein and his regime to end sanctions completely if they accept the need for inspection and the legitimate suspicions of the international community about their past efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. I invite my hon. Friend to read the resolution again and to consider whether any alternative would be more attractive to Saddam Hussein.

Sir David Madel: Is it the case that any country that helps Saddam Hussein to rebuild his radar defences is in breach of United Nations


resolutions, and that the sanctions regime cannot be changed until United Nations weapons inspectors have got into Iraq and started their essential work?

Mr. Hoon: The answer is yes to both points. Sanctions are targeted against military equipment, and our actions have been directed against equipment that threatens our aircrew who patrol the no-fly zones. The hon. Gentleman is right to stress his second point.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does not my right hon. Friend find it strange that he has the support of the shadow Defence Secretary, given that, at a time when some of us stood on platforms to support the Iraqi resistance and oppose Saddam Hussein, Tory Governments helped to arm him?
May I also ask what effect my right hon. Friend believes the current bombing of Iraq is having on the wider middle east peace process?

Mr. Hoon: The issue is not party political. The Labour Opposition supported the then Government"s position on the Gulf war and their subsequent action. We are not talking about party politics. I accept that others hold legitimate and reasonable opinions and different views about international law. However, I have set out clearly the Government"s policy and position.
I do not believe that any recent action to enforce the no-fly zones has any consequences for the middle east peace process.

Dr. Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) asked about the endgame. The Secretary of State"s reply concentrated on an endgame whereby Saddam Hussein ends matters, but we are worried about the endgame from our point of view. Given the Secretary of State"s anxiety about Saddam Hussein"s development of weapons of mass destruction, does he believe that it is possible to prevent it through a combination of economic sanctions and aerial bombardment alone? If not, what is his recommendation for solving the problem in the long term?

Mr. Hoon: I remind the hon. Gentleman that our policy is not a combination of economic sanctions and aerial bombardment; it is a policy of sanctions. The use of weapons to protect our aircrew is a consequence of Saddam Hussein"s attacks on them. If he did not attack our aircraft, there would be no need for "aerial bombardment", in the hon. Gentleman"s words.
On an endgame from our point of view, the hon. Gentleman should propose practical and sensible suggestions about the way in which the policy of successive Governments—whom he may have supported from time to time—can be changed to deal with the problem. Resolution 1284 is a proper, diplomatic response by the international community to try to further the endgame to which the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) referred earlier.

Ann Clwyd: As one who stood on the mountains of Iraq and Iran in 1991, and saw the hapless Kurds trying to flee Saddam Hussein"s helicopter

gunships, I cannot doubt the trust that they put in the patrolling of the airspace: they never want those things to happen to them again. I know no Iraqi Kurd or Shi"ite who wants an end to the no-fly zones. People forget that ethnic cleansing, torture, and execution are daily occurrences in Iraq. No one who watched the parade of military might, lasting five hours, which took place in Baghdad recently under Saddam Hussein"s supervision, could minimise the extent of the threat that the regime poses to the safety of the world.
Although I agree with the policy on no-fly zones because we have a right to protect the safety of our aircrew, the sanctions regime needs overhauling. May I commend to my right hon. Friend the report on sanctions of the Select Committee on International Development? It proposed smarter sanctions, which, if adopted, would mean that the regime would not get away with its current actions. It is a disgrace that allies such as Turkey allow 800 lorries a day to cross the border without checking their contents. Those lorries return laden with oil. The sanctions regime needs overhauling—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has taken far too much time.

Mr. Hoon: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend"s consistent and well-balanced approach to a difficult issue and her efforts to highlight it reasonably and thoughtfully. I shall re-examine the Select Committee"s recommendations.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Is it not the case that, although Saddam Hussein was isolated internationally 10 years ago, the American-British action is currently isolated? Does it not worry the Secretary of State that a regime as murderous as that of Saddam Hussein can gather international prestige and support? Does that not suggest that there must be a better way of approaching the matter? Will the Secretary of State inform hon. Members of any observations and suggestions about the American-British action that he has received from members of the Security Council?

Mr. Hoon: I simply do not recognise the world that the hon. Gentleman describes. I cannot think of any country that regards Iraq as having "prestige", to use his word. The international community"s position was set out in resolution 1284, which is supported by a range of international opinion. If Saddam Hussein chose to accept it, it could lead to Iraq"s restoration to the international community.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State accept that there should be some consistency in policy in the region? In that context, can he explain the reason for his belief that he has the legal authority to bomb Iraq while uttering no criticism of Turkey for its frequent military actions against Kurdish people, incursions into Iraq an I denial of Kurdish people"s human rights? Similarly, there is no condemnation of, let alone action against, Israel"s development of weapons of mass destruction, which is well known, and equally contrary to any United Nations resolution.

Mr. Hoon: I have set out the position in international law on the justification of no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. That position does not apply to Turkish action or to


circumstances anywhere in the world, except in the case of the grave humanitarian consequences that we could reasonably anticipate if we did not patro1 in north and south Iraq. We can say that because of past events, which substantiate our concerns for the future.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: No one envies the Secretary of State his difficulties in framing a policy—difficulties that were evidenced by his problems in replying to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). However, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the longer the Anglo-American strategy of no-fly zones continues, based on legal authority to prevent a grave humanitarian crisis, the flakier it becomes while it is difficult to establish a direct link between the no-fly zones and the stability of the Kurdish autonomous zone and the condition of the Shi" a people in the south? The thesis of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) almost needs to be tested for Anglo-American strategy to continue through military action on the ground. Does the Secretary of State accept that this cannot continue for ever as an Anglo-American military strategy unsupported by anyone else and with no other strategy in view?

Mr. Hoon: That might have been an interesting intellectual analysis if the hon. Gentleman had not reached a rather lame conclusion. We are considering not a military strategy, but a strategy for ensuring the prevention of a grave humanitarian crisis in the northern and southern no-fly zones. There would be no need to resort to military action if our aircraft were not attacked when fulfilling that humanitarian responsibility. We responded to protect those aircraft, and to allow them to continue to protect people on the ground. That is not a military strategy in the sense that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that intelligence information suggests that biological weapons. which we know Saddam Hussein will use without compunction against the Kurdish people, are currently being manufactured? Does not that

underline the necessity for us to get back to a proper inspection regime? In the absence of such a regime coming into force, we cannot feel a sense of safety for the people on the ground, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) mentioned, or for other nations.

Mr. Hoon: Without in any way wishing to confirm the premise of my hon. Friend"s observation, I certainly agree that it is important to have an effective inspection regime. That is why we worked so hard to incorporate such a regime in resolution 1284. We must have the strongest suspicions about what Saddam Hussein is trying to do inside Iraq, given his previous history. In those circumstances, it is right that we should be allowed an inspection before relaxing the sanctions in any way.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Secretary of State mentioned support from Kuwait and from the international community for UN resolutions. However, if the position on the bombing is as clear in international law as he suggests, and the logic of that bombing is as clear as he suggests, why does he think that international support for that bombing has been non-existent?

Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that it has been non-existent. I have set out the reasons why it is necessary for us to protect our aircrew while they are performing a humanitarian task over the northern and southern no-fly zones. That remains clearly justifiable in international law.

BILL PRESENTED

REGISTER OF DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENDERS

Mr. Desmond Browne: , supported by Fiona Mactaggart, Ms Sandra Osborne, Mr. John Robertson, Mr. Jim Murphy, Mr. Eric Joyce and Mr. David Stewart, presented a Bill to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to establish a register of drug trafficking offenders; to prescribe the circumstances in which, and by whom, the register may be consulted; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 March, and to be printed [Bill 50].

Orders of the Day — Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill seeks to clarify two points arising out of the Access to Justice Act 1999. It has become apparent that the powers taken in that Act are likely to be insufficient to maintain the current levels of legal assistance available to those involved in criminal investigations and proceedings. It is essential to remedy that so that we can bring in the criminal defence service. I want to place on record my gratitude for the support that the Bill has received from all parties in the other place, and I hope that it will not be contentious today.
First, there is a doubt that the interaction of sections 13 and 14 of the Access to Justice Act allows for advice and assistance to take the form of advocacy in certain proceedings. Secondly, the Bill would ensure that advice and assistance were available to those involved in criminal proceedings, rather than only to those involved in criminal investigations.
Criminal legal aid is currently governed by the Legal Aid Act 1988, which makes it possible for those involved in criminal proceedings or investigations to receive advice and assistance, including limited representation in court or in certain other hearings. That is known as advice by way of representation, or ABWOR, which is commonly used in a magistrates court at first hearing. The Government always intended that that important form of limited representation should continue to be available when the relevant provisions of the Access to Justice Act were brought into force on 2 April 2001. These provisions replace criminal legal aid with representation orders from the new criminal defence service. The criminal defence service is to be administered by the Legal Services Commission, which is the successor to the Legal Aid Board.
During the drafting of the detailed secondary legislation necessary to support the new criminal defence service scheme, my officials raised doubts as to whether the Access to Justice Act achieved all that was intended. As hon. Members may recall, the Access to Justice Bill was amended considerably during its passage through this House and another place in response to issues raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The original draft of the Bill would have maintained the provision of advice by way of representation. One inadvertent result of those amendments—which was not spotted by anyone on either side in either House at the time—appears to be that the continued provision of limited representation in those circumstances would probably not be possible.
The Bill therefore clarifies the extent of the Legal Services Commission"s duty to fund advice and assistance as part of the new criminal defence service from April. The limited form of representation for which the Bill provides will be known as advocacy assistance, and it will

be the basis of the court duty solicitor scheme. That scheme provides that, when an individual is remanded in custody or when there is risk of imprisonment, a duty solicitor at court can give advice and representation at the first hearing. The benefit of the scheme is that vulnerable individuals will be properly represented. However, the criminal justice system as a whole will benefit as delay will be avoided in cases in which there is no time for the individual to apply for a full representation order—formerly criminal legal aid, as I have mentioned.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that clause 1(2) provides for section 13(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 to have retrospective effect, will the Minister explain the significance of that retrospection in practical terms? It would be helpful if he would provide an example. Will he also I tell the House whether—and if so, to what extent—the policy has public expenditure implications?

Mr. Lock: I shall certainly deal with the retrospective nature of the Bill in relation to amendments made in another place. If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment to deal with the substance of the Bill, I shall come to the retrospective parts in due course.

Mr. Bercow: And the costs?

Mr. Lock: I shall
Indeed deal with the costs.
The second point that the Bill addresses is to ensure that advice and assistance is available for those involved in criminal proceedings as well as in investigations. Section 13 of the Access to Justice Act refers only to investigations. It is arguable that once an individual appears in court he is no longer under investigation, so the Bill clarifies that point.
Since the Bill was published, the Government have introduced three amendments on Report during its progress through the House of Lords. The effect of the amendments taken together is to allow the Bill, on enactment, to have retrospective effect, as the hon. Gentleman just mentioned. Amendment No. 1 provides that the Access to Justice Act will be read as though it had always been amended by this Bill. Amendment No. 2 provides that secondary legislation made under the powers in section 13(1) of the Access to Justice Act may also have retrospective effect, and amendment No. 3 changes the commencement date of the Bill. There is no longer any need for the Bill to commence on 2 April, and it will commence on the day on which it receives Royal Assent.
The reason why the Bill needs to have retrospective effect is—[Interruption] I encourage the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr Bercow) to listen to the answer to his question. Originally, it was envisaged that the Bill would receive Royal Assent in time for its provisions to be in force before the criminal defence service was introduced on 2 April 2001. In practice, that meant that it needed to obtain Royal Assent by 9 March. That would have allowed time to make the secondary legislation, using the power in the amended section 13 of the Access to Justice Act, to maintain the current levels of legal assistance available to those involved in criminal investigations and proceedings.
However, concern was raised that we might not be able to guarantee Royal Assent by the deadline of 9 March. That would have resulted in a lacuna in which


the powers under the unamended section 13 of the Access to Justice Act were thought to be insufficient to maintain the current levels of legal assistance For that reason, the Bill was amended so as to have retrospective effect, ensuring that there would be no such lacuna. Any secondary legislation will also be capable of having retrospective effect.
I hope that the Bill will complete its progress in good time and that the introduction of retrospectivity will prove to have been over-cautious, in which case no harm will have been done. However, if the House of Commons business managers cannot accommodate the same swift passage, this action will remove the possibility of gaps in our provision of legal support to those facing criminal charges.
I am very grateful to the Opposition for their support in the other place for the principle of retrospectivity, which was endorsed by the shadow Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Eric Forth: We have yet to reach the programme motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that you will allow me to ask a question based on its content. Should the Bill be given a Second Reading—and the more I hear of what the Minister has to say, the more doubt I have about that—the Committee proceedings are envisaged to end on 8 March. As there must also be a Report stage and Third Reading, and not least the possibility of the Bill moving between here and the other place, what will happen if the general election should intervene before it can receive Royal Assent?

Mr. Lock: The timing of a general election is entirely a matter for the Prime Minister. We are to debate the programme motion following Second Reading. Given that this is a one clause Bill of extremely limited purview, and that it has caused no controversy so far—although I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman may want to change that—I hope that the Committee stage may not take the full time allowed for in the motion. Should it do so, the matter will come back on Report in accordance with that motion.
I am grateful to Lord Renton, who said that we had advanced "valid and strong reasons" for supporting the retrospective provisions introduced as an amendment. I hope that hon. Members will agree that this is an important Bill, clearing up any doubt about whether the Legal Services Commission will have the power to fund advice and assistance, as was originally intended.
As the provisions will merely continue the duty solicitor scheme as currently operating, they do not in themselves have any public expenditure implications.

Mr. Bercow: My ears prick up, and I am immediately suspicious at the words "in themselves". How are we to interpret that? Could it mean that there may be a public expenditure connotation by some other means? It might not be obnoxious, but we should know about it.

Mr. Lock: The expression "in themselves" was meant to refer to the limited effect of the Bill, which merely allows the duty solicitor scheme to continue as currently operating, and as all parties intended it to operate, after the introduction of the criminal defence service on 2 April.
I hope that the House will agree that this limited but important Bill should have a smooth and speedy passage and reach the statute book before the Access to Justice Act 1999 comes into force in April. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Edward Garnier: The Bill arises from the unintended consequences of the relationship between sections 13 and 14 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The junior Minister and his counterpart in the other place readily acknowledge those consequences, but they have not acknowledged that this little Bill is itself a direct consequence, unintended no doubt, of the Government"s decision to crash through the Access to Justice Bill in 1998 and 1999 without thinking seriously about the problems that could arise. The 1999 Act is a Christmas tree that allows the Lord Chancellor to aggregate to himself 37 powers to make secondary legislation, the effects of which we are now having to correct.

Mr. Forth: I agree that this is a good example of how the Government handle their business in both Houses of Parliament. We are being expected to nod through the correction of an error caused in large part by their mishandling.

Mr. Garnier: Indeed. The problem is that if we do not correct the error, a considerable number of people will be disadvantaged and denied access to justice.
The Government fancifully called the original legislation the Access to Justice Act. My view is that it should be called the Denial of Access to Justice Act, and the Bill demonstrates why. Under the Legal Aid Act 1988, the initial advice and assistance available to those facing criminal proceedings includes limited support in court. By contrast, it is unlikely that section 13 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 will now allow the Legal Services Commission, via the criminal defence service, to fund advocacy services in situations such as making a bail application or representing an accused person who is at risk of being imprisoned. Equally, it may well inhibit the representation of someone at risk of being imprisoned for failure to pay a fine or obey a court order.
Those are injustices that the Bill is, sadly, needed to correct, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is entirely correct to draw to our attention the deficiency of the original Act and the arrogant and high-handed way in which the Government introduce important legislation.
Help granted in accordance with section 14 and schedule 3 of the 1999 Act will no longer be available to individuals in the circumstances covered by the existing assistance by way of representation—ABWOR—arrangements to which the Minister referred, which form the basis of the duty solicitor scheme. The Act fails to provide assistance in many of the areas in which it is currently available, thus derogating from existing individual rights.
Moreover, the rights concerned are almost certainly protected by article 6(1) of the European convention on human rights, with which we were assured at the time of its enactment, the 1999 Act would conform. It is perhaps instructive to remind ourselves that it was the current Defence Secretary who gave us that assurance here, and no less august a personage than the Lord Chancellor who did so in the other place.

Mr. Bercow: That is all right, then.

Mr. Garnier: One would like to think that it was all right, but unfortunately the Government have now


realised that the 1999 Act does not comply with the convention, so we need this two clause Bill to ensure that it does. I notice that on this occasion it is the junior Minister, who is here today, who has put his reputation on the line by saying that the Bill complies.

Mr. Forth: What reputation?

Mr. Garnier: Reputation and self-esteem need not be the same thing.
Now that these regrettable defects have been disclosed to us, it is right to correct them as quickly as possible. I take on board the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham about the retrospective nature of the Bill, but now that my hon. Friend has heard the Minister"s explanation, I hope that he will be reassured. Had I thought for a moment that an error would have been made or an injustice done to the integrity of the legislation by introducing retrospectivity, I would have been the first to complain.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst may have something to say on the matter, but it is probably right that the Bill will have received Royal Assent by 2 April. An error of this magnitude serves to amplify the Opposition"s frequently expressed concerns about the quality of representation that the public will receive from the criminal defence service. Those are directed in particular at the proposals to establish a salaried criminal defence service.
During the passage of the Access to Justice Bill, the Lord Chancellor envisaged a salaried service playing a role only where there was clear evidence that the private sector was unable to provide in a particular location services of an acceptable quality and quantity. I want to be assured, as did other speakers on the subject in the other place, that before establishing salaried defence lawyers in a particular location, a proper cost-benefit analysis will be undertaken so as to compare the merits of such an initiative with the alternatives available through the private practising profession.
The Minister, more than anybody else in Government, must be aware that there is practically a state of war between the Law Society and the Government and his Department over the funding of the fee structure behind the legal aid system for solicitors practising in criminal law. As I understand it, the Law Society has advised its members to boycott any agreements with the Government in respect of criminal representation work.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that, for once, he is taking a rather less aggressive and more sensible attitude towards the complaints of lawyers who find that the Government"s activities are wholly unconducive to the provision of justice. I trust that he will be able to assure me that he has every intention of respecting the guarantee in section 15(4) of the 1999 Act that no one can be compelled to be represented by a salaried lawyer employed by the criminal defence service.
We had a great deal of hot air, if I may say so, from the Home Secretary earlier this afternoon, when he was thumping on about what the Government have done and intend to do about the criminal justice system. More to the point, the Bill demonstrates how easy it is for a high-handed, careless and thoughtless Government to get

things wrong. This little Bill demonstrates a whole host of faults that we could find with the Government. I am delighted that they have at last seen the error of their ways and are bringing the legislation forward so that the original legislation can comply with the European convention on human rights. I trust that they will in future be rather more humble when it comes to trying to force their legislation on to the House of Commons.

Mr. John Burnett: It is uncontroversial to say that the old advice by way of representation scheme was useful. It was a cheap and relatively informal method of providing a limited degree of assistance in certain circumstances. It would be unfortunate if it turned out that similar assistance by way of advocacy was not available under the Access to Justice Act 1999, and for that reason, in the other place and here, we shall support the Bill.
It would be wrong if the category of those entitled under section 13 of he 1999 Act were not widened to include those subject to criminal proceedings. We welcome that change—individuals subject to criminal proceedings will be covered by this assistance, as well as those under investigation or subject to investigation.
The Government intend that in future at least some of this work will be done by their salaried defender service. Along with the Conservative party, we strongly opposed, as a matter of principle, the introduction of salaried defenders. There were many good reasons of principle for doing so, not least conflict of interest. That the state should be prosecutor, defender and judge in its own cause is alien to us and to anyone in the House. [Interruption.] It is anathema, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) says.
Will the Minister confirm that if the Government introduce a salaried defender service, defendants will always be able to choose either a lawyer from private practice or a state defender? We had long debates during the passage of the Access to Justice Bill, as it then was, about such a choice. It was the contention of the then Minister—now Secretary of State for Defence—that choices made by individuals should be irrevocable. There was a lot of debate at the time about the unfairness of that attitude. If an individual who was under arrest at 4 o"clock in the morning made a choice, and then, having sobered up 12 hours later, wanted to choose another defender—perhaps a private practice defender—should he or she be bound by that first choice? I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some comfort tonight on that point.

Mr. Lock: Is the hon. Gentleman asking for a wider guarantee on choice of lawyer than that contained in section 15(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, which guarantees that no person shall be required to accept a salaried defender? If so, will he formulate precisely what he seeks?

Mr. Burnett: I am asking the Minister whether, if a defendant chooses at 2 or 3 o"clock in the morning to be assisted by a salaried defender, that individual—in the space of one or two days or up to a week—will be able to change that choice, removing instructions from the salaried defender in due course and placing them with a private practitioner, or, for that matter, vice versa?



The unfortunate irrevocable nature of the initial choice caused strong debate in the House when the Access to Justice Bill was debated.
Another point that caused some discussion at that stage and to which an adequate answer was never really given concerned which Department of State would operate the state defender system. Will the Minister confirm that if a state defender system is set up it will never come under the aegis of the same Department as the Crown Prosecution Service?
I understand that there is a Scottish pilot scheme for the state defender system. I believe—it has been reported to me, in any event—that its operating costs are well in excess of budget. Will the Minister confirm that, and will he confirm the extent of the excess over budget? Will he also confirm that the alternative sty to defender system is likely to be more cost-effective and provide more value for money than the system already provided by private practice?

Mr. David Heath: I rise with some trepidation, but I wish to speak for two reasons. First, I think that matters of justice and the law are too important to be left to lawyers exclusively. Secondly, I spent an extremely instructive day last week at my local magistrates court in Frome talking to the practitioners who are engaged in such work at out the situation that they see developing. I must say that one reason for my visit was my hope that we will still have a local magistrates court in the foreseeable future. I have grave doubts about the policies being pursued by the Lord Chancellor"s Department on the smaller courts.
I was struck by salient points made by solicitors with whom I talked about the consequences for their profession of the Bill and the Access to Justice Act 1999. I do not dissent from the views expressed by either my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) or the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). Like them, I welcome this correction to the 1999 Act, even if it is extraordinary that the House should be asked to correct that legislation. A little humility from Ministers would be entirely appropriate, although we can, perhaps, expect nothing of the sort from the Lord Chancellor: we seem to have developed the new maxim that being Lord Chancellor means never having to say sorry.
There is an extraordinary lacuna in the Bill on the critical point of representation of people in legal proceedings. It is extraordinary that the Government should have certified that the 1999 Act conformed with the Human Rights Act 1998 and then found such an omission.
My first point echoes what my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon had to say about salaried defence lawyers. It would be entirely inappropriate for the state to sponsor investigation through the police, prosecution through the Crown Prosecution Service and defence through a salaried defence lawyer. It would be inappropriate for all those people to be principally responsible to a Minister. That would not transparently represent justice done, and we should be careful about proceeding towards overall nationalisation of the processes of justice.
My more important point is about how the Bill will work in practice from 2 April. The Parliamentary Secretary in the other place made the point on Second

Reading there that the principal practitioners who will provide the duty solicitor service at our magistrates courts and police stations will remain private practitioners. He said that 3,000 or more firms are engaged in that process. All would be well if all of them remained involved, but, having spoken with Mr. Killah and Mr. Bannister at my local court last week, and having received written submissions from Mr. Howlett and Mr. Greenwood, I do not believe that they will. In some parts of the country, particularly outside the conurbations and cities, we face a grave situation from 2 April.
As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, the clear advice that solicitors are receiving from the Law Society is that they should not sign the new contracts being offered by the criminal defence service. That call is clearly being heeded by a great many—if not the majority—of the solicitors in private practice who are providing the services that the Bill addresses.
Unless something changes, on 2 April not a single solicitor in my constituency will be providing the service. There will be but one in Bath, where every other solicitor has signed a declaration saying that he or she will not sign the contracts. There will be no solicitors in Bristol to provide services under this franchise. The position is grave.
It would not be appropriate for me to go into the details of the contract while we are on Second Reading, but solicitors have made good points about the bureaucracy involved—I accept that it is less than it was originally, but it remains significant—about liability, and about unilateral changes that may be made by the criminal defence service but not by solicitors" practices. The level of remuneration has also been mentioned, although I do not believe that it is a prime consideration for many solicitors who are essentially vocational in their attachment to a rather unenviable area of legal work.
Not a single solicitor who has written or spoken to me has questioned the need for some regulation, for audit or for a contract. They simply say that what is on the table at present is not acceptable. Ministers have previously hidden their intentions behind the impression that they are dealing with fat-cat lawyers, those whom we naturally revile and who are making themselves rich at the expense of the defendant or the taxpayer through the legal aid system. That is transparently not the case, however, for those solicitors in small magistrates courts who, in situations in which not many of us would wish to be, act as duty solicitors who are carried by the other members of their partnerships who do much more lucrative work elsewhere in the legal system.
I have been given a clear understanding that unless matters change, people will flee criminal work, telling their partners that they were wrong to cross-subsidise criminal work with civil or other work.

Mr. Lock: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the current debate between the Legal Services Commission and the solicitors considering signing the criminal contract has nothing to do with fat-cat lawyers. It is about solicitors providing important public services, paid for by the taxpayer, to vulnerable clients for a modest return. It is about important services and the controls and contractual structure necessary to ensure a guarantee of quality for both the commission and the client as well as a proper, though not excessive, return for the solicitor. We must get


that balance right. I have spoken many times on this matter and have never raised the issue of fat-cat lawyers in connection with the contractual dispute. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by that.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful for that helpful intervention, but the Minister has simply underlined the fact that no matter how far advanced the negotiations are, they have not produced a satisfactory result. He merely highlights the fact that we may, in only a month and a half, have a serious problem with the administration of criminal justice in magistrates courts outside the conurbations. If so, Ministers will find themselves in a great deal of difficulty—perhaps at an extremely inopportune moment. They will face people who are properly addressing their concerns through the Human Rights Act 1998, such as prisoners who have not been properly represented. We have before us the makings of a complete breakdown in our system of local justice, a system that we prize and which it is absolutely essential to maintain.
The Bill restores advice by way of representation—so-called advocacy assistance—and that goes some way towards ensuring an unbroken maintenance of the traditional right of local representation. However, that can be mediated only by an effective local defence service, and there is a danger that that will not exist within the space of a few brief weeks. Ministers must address the problem urgently: it may not yet have hit the headlines, but it assuredly will do so across most of the country that is outside large cities and away from large practices. We may face an irrevocable breakdown in relations with the important professionals working within the local justice system.

Mr. Eric Forth: I have been a Member of the House long enough to know that, when a Minister sidles up to the Dispatch Box, assures us that a Bill is small and technical but important and then claims that he has the support of the Opposition, those are very good reasons to be extremely suspicious of what on earth is going on. As we listened to the rather inadequate explanations offered by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor"s Department, of this allegedly small, technical but very important Bill, my suspicious were strengthened.
In my notes of the Minister"s remarks, I identified several headings: provenance, retrospection, confusion and public expenditure. Coming to the debate as a layman, gratuitously sticking my nose into esoteric legal matters, I am happy to say that I was greatly assisted by the explanatory notes not only for this Bill but for the Access to Justice Bill, which I found most helpful when I tried to satisfy myself as to what on earth we are attempting to do.
I shall trot briefly through my headings, with some references to the explanatory notes, before analysing the Bill itself. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall attempt to make all my remarks strictly relevant.
On provenance, the Minister was forced to admit, under cross-examination from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), that the Bill turns out to be all too good an example of a measure that has arisen from an ill-considered piece of prior legislation—

the Access to Justice Act 1999. As the Minister confessed, that measure needed a large number of amendments, which were made on he hoof—the Minister did not use that expression, but I paraphrase him in order to be helpful. The attitude taken by the Labour Government to the legislative process has become all too familiar: they start with an ill-considered Bill; it is hacked around, amended and altered in another place; it then returns to this place and, usually with wholly inadequate time, is amended or—as the Government would put it—further improved. Thus, we have a Bill that seeks to correct a lacuna—perhaps even, lacunae—brought about by the Government"s own handling of the prior legislation.
That would be bad enough but, as a direct result of all that, we are being asked to accept the worrying element of retrospection that has entered the process, which we are told is essential. Why has that element arisen? The key is helpfully given—as ever—in the Bill"s explanatory notes, paragraph 4 of which helpfully states:
It was always the intention that such limited representation would continue to be available in the same circumstances.
The Government have told us with rare and almost disarming honesty that they had intended something to happen under the prior legislation, but had not quite managed to deliver it. No doubt that was due to the rush of ill-considered amendments made to that measure.
The Government go on to tell us why we are considering the Bill:
There is some doubt that the interaction of sections 13 and 14 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 allows for this limited form of representation.
Having confessed to their inadequacies, they explain:
The Bill seeks to remedy those doubts by amending section 13.
The worrying part is the statement that
As it is uncertain whether the Bill will receive Royal Assent before 2nd April 2001"—
that is indeed uncertain, as I shall discuss in a moment in relation to the possible timetable—
the Bill is drafted to have retrospective effect to that date.
The Government are telling us that there has been a mistake; there is a lacuna that they want to correct. The implication is that the measure has been given the lordly stamp of approval in another place, so we do not have to look too closely at it. We now have future retrospection entering the legislative process. That may be unique—it may be a novelty— but for the Government to say that they are introducing provisions that will have retrospective effects just in case what they thought would happen does not happen seems to introduce a multiplicity of doubt and uncertainty to the process that cannot do us, or it, any good.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the use of the words "then is some doubt" comes as near to an admission of ministerial fallibility as we are likely to encounter during this Parliament? Does he further agree that, if Ministers have reached that judgment on the strength of advice from Government lawyers, it would be helpful on this occasion to breach the convention that such advice is not published so that we can see it for ourselves? Alternatively, if Ministers have come to that view as the result of outside representations, may we be told from whom those representations have come?

Mr. Forth: "In your dreams" is all I can say to my hon. Friend. The day that that happens we shall all be so


astonished that proceedings may momentarily grind to a halt—although they will not do so on this occasion, I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps, from now on, the Minister should be known as "Doubtful Lock", or something of that kind.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that we are witnessing a rare admission of near fallibility, but I regret that, in my interpretation of what is happening, that admission is altogether spoiled by the Minister"s telling the House that he really does not expect us to take much interest in the measure as it is a relatively small matter; that he expects it to be nodded through quickly; and—as I shall discuss when we come on to the debate on to the timing of the measure—that the Government expect it to be completed without too much fuss, in spite of the fact that we are correcting a measure that arose from exactly the same approach on a previous occasion.
The Minister compounds the felony by saying that, because the previous Act was made a mess by rushing it through with too many amendments, he is asking the House to rush through another measure. The correction of those errors is to be rushed through with as little scrutiny as possible. That is not a good harbinger of success.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I was unable to take part earlier in the debate. He raises an extremely important point. Does he understand from the Minister"s explanation that, if the Bill is enacted and if regulations are made under it, actions that are currently unlawful will be rendered lawful, or will it be only those actions that take plat after 2 April, when the Bill has not yet become law, that become lawful?

Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend challenges me to explain what the Minister thought he was saying. That challenge may defeat even me. In a genuine attempt to help my right hon and learned Friend, I can only draw his attention to explanatory notes, which state:
As it is uncertain whether the Bill will receive Royal Assent before 2nd April 2001 (when that section is commenced)"—
that is section 13—
the Bill is drafted to have retrospective effect to that date.
I take that to mean that the retrospection would start on 2 April 2001; it would not have effect before that date. That is what I was referring to when I talked of the novel concept of future retrospection. I must confess that it defeats me. That is as much help as I can offer my right hon. and learned Friend, but I am sure that the Minister will clarify all when he winds up this little debate at a later hour. The point puzzles me as much as it does my right hon. and learned Friend.
Talking of dates—as we now are because the date is mentioned in the explanatory notes—I do not want to pre-empt the impassioned debate that we shall hold shortly on the programme motion, except to note that it is highly relevant at this stage. Thai is because we are in the rather unusual position that it is widely assumed that an election may be pending. The House must take account of such facts. We cannot operate in a bubble and pretend that nothing is happening outside this place. There is considerable speculation as to the possibility of an early Prorogation, Dissolution of the House and election.
That is material in this case because, if we agree to the Bill"s Second Reading tonight, its consideration in Committee would end on 8 March under the timetable that the Minister suggests in the programme motion.
If I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the debate on the programme motion, I want to say something about that date, but let us take it as given at the moment. After that date, Report and Third Reading would have to take place and, if the Bill were to be amended—given the mess we are already in, amendments may be required in Committee, even to this Bill—it might be necessary for the matter to return to another place. Self-evidently, there might not be enough time, especially if an election were to take place on 5 April, one of the most widely canvassed dates, and with the postponement of the countryside rally announced early today, surely an even stronger runner.
I repeat my earlier challenge to the Minister: what does he think will happen if Dissolution of this Parliament occurs before the completion of even the accelerated timetable that he suggests? Even his retrospection will not save him then, because he will not get it without Royal Assent. Against a background of what may be much greater events, he is attempting to put us under unreasonable time pressure given the Bill"s desired effect, as he has put it. Thus the challenge, which was echoed by what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) said earlier: if those circumstances effectively leave a group of people without legal representation, what does the Minister have to say to us and them?
Why has the Minister waited until now to introduce this allegedly very important Bill, with its unreasonable timetable, given the backdrop of a possible election? Unless he is extraordinarily fortunate, all those matters seem to conspire against him, and the lacuna that he seeks to remedy under the Bill will remain if Royal Assent is not given. I hope that he will be candid with us about those matters. He tried to take refuge behind an old shibboleth, saying that he would not speculate on whether the election will be held soon because that is a matter for the Prime Minister. We all know that, but the Minister owes it to the legislative process and to the people who may well go without representation unless the Bill is passed to explain exactly what he envisages will happen if the process that I describe occurs.
The matter appears to revolve around a confusion that has arisen between the terms "investigations" and "proceedings". I confess that the fact that I am not a lawyer will prove a considerable handicap, but my layman"s reading of the Bill suggests that the difficulty has arisen because of the difference in wording between sections 12(1) and 13(1)(b) of the original Access to Justice Act 1999. Throughout section 12 reference is made to
criminal investigations or criminal proceedings",
yet the word "proceedings" does not appear in section 13, which is unhelpful. If my reading is correct, that is where the matter originates, but what puzzles me is why that element of doubt has arisen, and I should appreciate the Minister"s guidance in due course. Sections 12 and 13 seem to contain what I shall call wide savings provisions. Section 12(2)(g) refers to
such other proceedings concerning an individual, before any such court or other body, as may be prescribed"—


the good old catch-all phrase with which we are increasingly familiar in such Acts. Section 13(2)(g) coincidentally refers to the commission
doing anything else which it considers appropriate for funding advice and assistance.

Mr. Lock: Perhaps I can assist the right hon. Gentleman. If he turns to section 14 of the 1999 Act, he will see that subsection (1) provides for the grant of a representation in specific criminal proceedings. That is the reference to criminal proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman helpfully refers the House to the fact that section 13(2)(g) provides for the funding of advice and assistance. However, it is not clear from section 13(1) or, indeed, from section 13(2)(g), whether that advice and assistance includes advocacy in a case that is not subject to investigation because it has become a matter of proceedings before a court.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful explanation, which takes us some way further in satisfying ourselves about the nature of the lacuna that he and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire described earlier.

Mr. Bercow: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not err on the side of unnecessary and excessive generosity in this matter because, although the Minister might well now have an extremely effective grasp of the Access to Justice Act 1999, it is a great pity that he and his hon. Friends, especially the current Secretary of State for Defence, did not have such a grasp at the time. Will my right hon. Friend clear up the confusion that still exists in my mind as to exactly when it occurred to the Government that the 1999 Act might not achieve what it was intended to achieve and when exactly therefore it was decided to introduce this supposedly modest measure?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Minister coyly failed to give us that information; it has not yet emerged, but it is crucial because it relates to the matter of timing, to which I referred a moment ago. If the matter had been identified earlier and the Government had been able properly to introduce this corrective Bill in another place and then here, the difficulties might still have arisen, but not in the same way. The Minister would not be in the position in which he now finds himself of expecting, with the arrogance that we have come to expect of the Government, that the Bill will be rushed or nodded through with scant regard under the timetable that the Government need to get themselves out of this hole. Had the matter been dealt with on a proper time scale at an earlier date, it would have been more certain and more measured, and proper scrutiny could have taken place, instead of which we now face the possibility of truncated consideration in Committee and the Bill"s Third Reading and further stages at risk for the reasons that I have given. Perhaps, as a result of my hon. Friend"s helpful intervention, the Minister will explain matters further. We might be more sympathetic to his request if he were prepared to tell us why the Bill has been introduced at this very late stage, putting him in such an embarrassing position.
I am grateful to the Minister for the further explanation that he has given as to the nature of the problem that we are seeking to remedy, but that only brings us to the intriguing reference in the explanatory notes to public expenditure, to which my hon. Friend referred earlier. Rather teasingly, paragraph 28 of the explanatory notes states:
The Bill will not increase public expenditure.
That gives rise to another question: either the Bill is simply intended to validate the existing services or legal support given to people subject to criminal investigation or proceedings, or it is intended to give them something in addition.
I am not sure whether I can simply take as read the statement that the Bill will not increase public expenditure, because either the claims that were originally made when the 1999 Act was passed have not been fulfilled, or something additional will be provided if the Bill receives its Second Reading, in which case I should have thought that public expenditure would inevitably increase.

Mr. Lock: It may help to answer the right hon. Gentleman"s question about public expenditure if I point out what would be likely to happen if the duty solicitor scheme were to be abandoned. In those circumstances, the defendants who have a right to representation would have their cases adjourned and would have to go to solicitors to seek a right to representation under section 14(1) of the 1999 Act in respect of individual cases. The cases would come back before the court on a later occasion and justice would be delayed. The overall cost to taxpayers would therefore probably be considerably higher.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful for the Minister"s explanation. However, almost all the Members who have spoken in the debate have suggested that the answer depends, to put it crudely, on the relationship between the services provided by private and public sector sources. Our view of the Minister"s analysis would depend rather more on the view that one takes of those relationships, which are not at all clear to me. I still have my doubts about the assertion in the explanatory notes:
The Bill will not increase public expenditure".
However, I shall leave the matter at that. The Minister has provided his explanation and I shall leave it to others to judge whether it is the correct interpretation.
I have concluded my preamble and I now come to the Bill itself, in relation to which further explanation is required. I am keen—at least, initially—to read the text of the Bill literally to see whether it means what it says. Clause 1(1) states:
Subsection (1) of section 13 of the Access to Justice Act 1999"—
the Act that we have been discussing—
shall be treated as having been enacted with the substitution of the following for paragraph (b) and the words after it".
Does that literally mean what it says? Does that constitute the entirety of the remaining provisions in section 13, which appears to consist of more words than those simply in paragraph (b)? The wording of clause 1(1) is rather unusual. I seek clarification as to whether it refers to paragraph (b) only or to that paragraph and all the following words.
New section 13(1)(b) of the 1999 Act contains the words:
in prescribed circumstances, for individuals is who—
(i) are not within paragraph (a) but are involved in
investigations which may lead to criminal proceedings".
I am again at a disadvantage in that I am not a lawyer, but I wonder whether that wording is sufficiently clear as to be reliable. The phrase "investigations which may lead" appears to be very vague and all-encompassing and, in some circumstances, that could lead to difficulties.
The same point applies to my reading of new paragraph (b)(2), which contains the words:
are before a court or other body in such proceedings".
My legal friends and colleagues—and perhaps even the Minister—may well be able to reassure me that the term "or other body" is sufficiently clear and can be relied on not to open up what, on the face of it, could be a wide range of possibilities. As the whole point of the Bill is to provide the clarification and the reliability that patently did not appear in the 1999 Act, I wonder whether the words are sufficiently reliable for us to go forward with confidence and give the Bill a Second Reading.
Clause 1(2) provides the retrospective element in the Bill. It states:
Regulations under subsection (1) of section 13 (as amended above) may include provision treating them as having come into force at the same time as that subsection.
That odd form of words gives us the future retrospection to which I referred earlier and which, I have had difficulty getting my mind round.
Overall, I am worried not just by the lateness of the Bill"s introduction or the speed that the Government are relying on to make it effective; that is bad enough. I have grave doubts as to whether its wording is sufficiently robust and reliable to do what it is intended to do. Given that the Bill is designed to correct earlier errors, one would have hoped and expected that it would be above and beyond suspicion. I do not believe that it is, and I am not yet satisfied that the retrospective element should be accepted as readily as the Minister suggests.
This allegedly small, technical and uncontroversial Bill is not all those things. Small it may look, but it has potentially wide ramifications. It carries within it many implications for the legislative process and for the Government"s attitude to that process. The fact that the Bill has been introduced to correct the Government"s earlier errors, which were caused by the speed at which they legislate and by the excessive number of amendments leads me to believe that the Bill requires much more scrutiny than the Government may have imagined. Its timetable may be more at risk than the Minister glibly suggested.
The House is right to give attention to such a Bill. I look forward very much to the Minster expanding on his introductory remarks as he seeks to reassure us on the matters that I have raised.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to have the opportunity to take part in the debate, and I repeat my apology for not having been present earlier. I wish to make just a couple of short points that are important to the way in which the country is governed—or, at least in part, significantly misgoverned.
The country is significantly misgoverned because legislation is rushed through. Legislation is often rushed even when we do not face the circumstances pertaining to this parliamentary Session, in which every Bill is being timetabled and in which much important criminal justice legislation is simply being put through in a time that is inadequate for its proper consideration. I know that perfectly well because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins,) I am currently serving on the heavily truncated Committee stage of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. That Bill will certainly not receive the scrutiny that it requires.
This Bill follows on from the Access to Justice Act 1999. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has said in the past and as he probably said before I entered the Chamber, the 1999 Act was simply a legal Christmas tree—an expression that I had not heard before—on which it was possible to hang almost anything. On it are being hung the rights of the citizens of this country and their freedoms when they are brought before a court and charged with a criminal offence and their liberty is at risk of being removed by the court.
It is plain that this Bill was introduced because the need for the representation of the citizens in those circumstances was overlooked when the 1999 Act was passed. I do not blame the Minister for that. I was a junior Minister in the then Department of Health and Social Security and—happily, before I joined the Department—I know that mistakes were made in legislation and had to be corrected in what were colloquially known as the Social Security (Cock-up) (No. 1) and the Social Security (Cock-up) (No. 2) Bills. I would describe the present Bill as the Access to Justice (Cock-up) (No. 1) Bill.
It is right that mistakes should be corrected, but it is not right for corrections to made without our noting that errors occur when legislation is not properly scrutinised. That happens very often these days.

Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this is what happens when Parliament, forced by a huge and thoughtless Government majority, allows Ministers to create legislation by secondary powers? He kindly referred to me and was very perceptive about what I said this evening—I did use the expression "Christmas tree". Such legislation is exactly what happens when Governments try to give themselves powers to make legislation off the field. Ministers run back to their Departments to draw up legislation, and they let through provisions that they might have decided against if they had thought about them and had they been debated on the Floor of the House.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right; that is exactly what happens. The country should sit up and take notice of the way in which it is being misgoverned. Another example of that misgovernment occurred this afternoon, and it is highly relevant to this aspect of criminal justice, which concerns the way in which people can be brought before the courts.
The criminal defence service is designed to reduce the standard of defence that is available to the citizen when he is charged with a crime. I see the Minister frowning at that suggestion, but if he is seriously saying that a salaried service will be the equivalent of the current service, he


needs to make his case. If the Government receive another term of office, as I hope they will not, and if what is being spun in the newspapers today becomes law—curiously, it did not find reflection in the Home Secretary"s statement earlier—the citizen who has a right to receive representation under the criminal defence service will lose the right to be brought before a jury and will simply have a right to come before a legally qualified chairman and three lay magistrates, which is not the same.
It is wrong that the House is being asked to rush through legislation that fundamentally truncates both the rights of citizens who find themselves in the dock and the democratic rights of UK citizens to control our criminal justice system by their efforts as jurors, as they do in their hundreds of thousands every month,

Mr. Nick Hawkins: My right hon. and learned Friend is talking about rushing legislation through the House. Does he agree that on the first day back after a short recess, it may be relevant to recall that during that recess we had the revelation of the scandalous way in which the Lord Chancellor is using his time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going far outside the scope of the Bill. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), too, is concentrating rather more on the Act that is being amended than on the Bill itself.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: If I have concentrated too much on the Act rather than on the Bill that amends it, and if that is out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will attempt to step back into order.
I centre my remarks on the criminal defence service, which is the subject of the Bill. Its inadequacies have been shown up by the very need to introduce the Bill. The standard of representation that is available to someone who needs defence is an important matter of civil liberty. I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to have had the opportunity to take part in the debate and make that point. I hope that the Government will take to heart the point that rushing legislation through the House is not in our parliamentary tradition, and that if they receive another term of office, they will not do so again.

Mr. Lock: This has been an interesting debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister requires the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Lock: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House I will respond to the debate. As I am speaking for a second time, I shall be brief.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) for his support for the Bill. He referred to the negotiations on the criminal contract and the criminal defence service which are taking place between the Legal Services Commission and the Law Society. Those negotiations are at an advanced stage. As a lawyer, the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that

lawyers are skilled negotiators not only on behalf of their clients but on their own behalf, and one would expect them to exploit the position to their utmost advantage. I am confident that the contract that is available at present is fair. I am grateful to the firms of solicitors that have signed the contract to date, and we look forward to more firms signing in due course.
The hon. and learned Gentleman trotted out his usual attacks on the Access to Justice Act 1999. Of course, we do not know what his party proposes for criminal contracts, so we have no idea what the alternative is. In civil law, the alternative offered by the Opposition is to give £500 million back to the Treasury and entirely abolish civil legal aid, which would hardly create access to justice.

Mr. Garnier: If the Minister wishes to respond to the points that I made in the debate, I will be happy to listen to him. If he wishes to raise erroneous Aunt Sallies about another debate, he should confine his remarks to another place.

Mr. Lock: I appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman is embarrassed about his civil justice proposals, so I will not pursue the matter.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) raised a serious issue, unlike those hon. Members who spoke before him, when he referred to the independence of salaried lawyers. I am sure that he has read the remarks of the Canadian Bar Association which are set out in the Government"s consultation paper on the establishment of the criminal defence service. The association said that it should be obvious that it is the fact of third-party payment, not the nature or form of that payment, that creates the potential conflict when the paymaster is the public purse. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to concerns that a salaried lawyer employed by the state may lack independence compared with someone who receives money from the state but is in private practice.
The evidence from well-structured and well-funded salaried services around the world is extremely positive and shows that a mixed system provides not only value for money for the taxpayer but independent representation for the defendant. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks of Judge Helen Halpert of the King county superior court, formerly of the Seattle municipal court. That experienced judge said:
Most judges, if they were offered the choice between an agency lawyer or a private lawyer, would choose the agency lawyer.
The independence of public staff defence lawyers, where they are well established and well financed, means that they are thoroughly committed to their clients.
I accept, of course, that there are examples of underfunded agency lawyers and staff lawyers in many Commonwealth countries who do not provide a good service. Comparing like with like, however, the evidence in favour of such a service is very strong. It is the fact of third-party payment, not whether that payment is made to someone who is employed or to someone who is self-employed, that makes the difference.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon made an important point about the choice of the defendant. I am sure that he saw our consultation paper on the issue, which raised a number of questions about the appropriate


cooling-off period. No decisions have been made on that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to respond to the consultation and that we have therefore had the opportunity to hear his views, in addition to those voiced by others.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made—

Mr. Burnett: I made another point. I hope that the Minister can reassure the House that the Crown Prosecution Service and the state defender service will never come under the aegis of the same Department of state.

Mr. Lock: The hon. Gentleman did raise that point, on which I cannot reassure him other than by saying that the Government have no plans to do that. The proposals set out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary earlier this afternoon plot a course for the future of the criminal justice system. They plainly envisage the separation of the departmental responsibilities of the CPS and defence services. I hope that that will remain the case. I believe that it is only right and proper that it should. However, one can never say never. A Government, possibly in the far distant future and of a different party, could form another view.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: In those circumstances, how can it be an objective of Government policy to ensure that an extra 100,000 prosecutions take place each year when that is matter not for the Home Secretary but for the Attorney-General?

Mr. Lock: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the document that was presented this afternoon, he will see that it is a result of the three Departments that are responsible for criminal justice working together. The document had to be presented to the House by one Department—in this case, the Home Office—but it covers the role played within the overall criminal justice system by departments that are responsible to the Home Office, and the role of my Department and that of the Attorney-General.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was entertaining as always. Retrospection will be needed only if Royal Assent is granted after 2 April. The Bill"s provisions on retrospection will not be required if Royal Assent is granted before 2 April. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to say that no provisions will come into force if there is no Bill and that, therefore, there will be no provisions to which retrospection will apply. As the CDS comes into force on 2 April, it will have the financial consequences that I outlined. In those cases for which representation is required, a representation order will be needed under section 14. That is instead of utilising the duty solicitor provisions in section 13.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is in the interests of the operation of the criminal justice system that retrospection should not happen. He was right to say that the Bill arises out of a lacuna. This is not the first time that the matter has beer brought before the House. I could not describe the Bill better than the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who eloquently spoke of taking forth legislation in similar circumstances as a junior Minister. It is in the interests of the criminal justice system to allow the matter to proceed smoothly.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst also asked about the meaning of clause 1(1). I assure him that it substitutes section 13(1)(b) with a new paragraph (b) and contains the words that will follow it. That is why the words
and the assistance which the Commission may consider appropriate
and so on are included.

Mr. David Heath: I rise only to remind the hon. Gentleman that he gave every impression that he was about to respond to my points when my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) intervened, and no more has been said on the matter.

Mr. Lock: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome raised the issue of the independence of salaried defenders and the concerns raised by lawyers. I dealt with that when I responded to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon. He also asked whether lawyers would sign up to the contracts. Lawyers are experienced negotiators. They will negotiate in a tough manner, not only for their clients but for themselves. We are confident that the criminal contract is fair. We are grateful to the solicitors who have signed up to it and I am confident that the solicitors who are negotiating hard will recognise that the settlement on the table is fair. I hope that they will sign up to it; indeed, I expect them to.

Mr. Heath: I accept that a body of solicitors" firms across the country are negotiating in the terms that the Minister describes and will eventually sign up to a contract. However, having spoken face to face with a few solicitors who work in my area, I am convinced that they intend to leave criminal work completely as a result of the process—indeed, some have already done so. That is a loss to the criminal justice system.

Mr. Lock: I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman"s solicitor constituents. However, it is also true that solicitors in mixed practices often find that their private work is considerably more lucrative than public sector work has ever been—and than it would be appropriate for it to be. The proper comparator for lawyers who work for the state is the equivalent amount of money that they would get were they to engage in other work for the state at a comparable level of experience, stress and importance, and not the amount that they would achieve if their client were of sufficient means to be able to pay privately.
To that extent, I accept that in mixed practice firms, the solicitors who are successful in their private practice will generate higher fees than those who work in the public sector. If the hon. Gentleman"s solicitor constituents are comparing the amount that they earn from the state with the amount that they would earn should they successfully obtain private work elsewhere at much higher rates, I understand that that would raise a concern. However, the contract that determines the amount that is available for the public sector financing of legal services is proper and fair.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire suggested that the CDS was designed to reduce the quality of defence before a court. I entirely disagree. For the first time, the CDS will ensure that every


solicitor who is engaged in a contract has been through a quality assurance system. The state, which will be paying for the services, and the client, who will be receiving them, will be certain that they are being provided by a quality assured lawyer. That has never happened before. Merely qualifying and practising as a solicitor is not sufficient quality assurance to be able to offer services in every aspect of law. Those people who offer services in the criminal sector will have a criminal quality mark. That will reflect a significant improvement in quality, which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman welcomes.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: No matter what service is supplied, people have to go through some form of quality assurance procedure. That normally leads to as high a standard as is achieved when people have to compete with others who want to take the work from them. They have to demonstrate their competence month in, month out. It is left to the professional and the lay client to choose an advocate of suitable competence. Is there not a marked distinction between having no choice and simply providing a basic quality that is organised by the state, which is also paying what might well be a modest figure, and an open competitive system of the sort that we have enjoyed for so long?

Mr. Lock: I understand the points made. No, I do not accept that the market is king in this area. I believe that the quality assurance system is important.
The provisions are important. They will allow vulnerable individuals in court and in other hearings limited representation, thereby protecting their interests at a crucial stage, and will avoid delay. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Mr. Lock: I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [Lords]:

Standing Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.

3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 8th March.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at six o"clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at three o"clock on that day.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not
previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at seven o"clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at four o"clock on that day.

6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Lords messages

7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

The programme motion proposes that proceedings in Standing Committee be brought to a conclusion on 8 March. I consider that appropriate because it will allow up to four sittings during the week commencing 5 March. I am sure that even Conservative Members will agree that that should allow ample time to consider a Bill of this modest size and scope. Perhaps only one or two sittings will be required, but it is entirely for Opposition Members to use the time available to the best effect. Arrangements for the programming of later stages of the Bill will be decided by the House at a later time, in the light of experience in Committee.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will want to make observations on this short Bill.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman just said that later stages will be regulated by the House at a later time. So far as I can see, paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the motion deal explicitly with Report and Third Reading.

Mr. Lock: Paragraph 4 does not provide for the day on which proceedings will be brought to a conclusion. Clearly, the date for Report will be fixed later. That is what I meant. Of course, the timing of Report is provided for by the paragraphs to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, but arrangements for programming—


precisely when the Bill will come hack to the House—will be decided in the light of experience in Committee. I commend the motion to the House

Mr. Garnier: The Minister"s performance was useless. His arguments in favour of the motion suggested, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out, that he had not even read it.
The programme motion demonstrates the following: we have before us a small-minded, arrogant, paranoid Government who are infected by control freakery. Why cannot they let the Committee make up its own mind about how long it is appropriate for it to sit and consider the contents of the Bill? Large parts of the Access to Justice Act 1999 were not considered in Committee because matters were brought to a premature end. I really do despair of a Government who have reached the end of this Parliament by programming everything. It is high time that the Government grew up and let Parliament decide its own affairs.

Mr. Burnett: We deprecate the use of programme motions. They are unnecessary and fly in the face of what should be parliamentary democracy. The Bill contains important matters which will be of interest to and have an impact on constituents of all Members of Parliament. Therefore, there should be an opportunity for the widest debate. The programme motion should be resisted, and we shall oppose it.

Mr. Forth: We now go through this process properly with regard to each Bill before the House. We do so properly only in the sense that the Government have decreed that that will be the way in which legislation is dealt with in this House. The Minister"s comments illustrate all too well, if somewhat embarrassingly, the fact that Ministers no longer bother to acquaint themselves with the content of motions in their name, and simply assume that such matters will be readily rubber-stamped by the House and dealt with peremptorily by the Government, with little regard to the circumstances or content of the Bill.
The Minister said that he assumes that matters can be properly dealt with. Let us remind ourselves that, at least under the terms of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, we are talking about detailed scrutiny by a Committee of this House of a Bill that is to become the law of the land. The Minister has taken it on himself, as Ministers now routinely do, to say, "We, the Government, assume that you, the House of Commons, will require only a limited amount of time properly to scrutinise this piece of legislation." That is of course before the Government have had the benefit of hearing the debate on Second Reading. It was perfectly obvious that the Minister assumed that, because the Bill is relatively short and apparently has the support of Members of all parties in the other place, it could be dealt with rather rapidly and without too much trouble by the House of Commons. The Government routinely take that approach to such matters.
The Minister should at least attempt to take some account of the views expressed on Second Reading. In my modest contribution to the debate on Second Reading,
I sought to raise a number of matters. Several others were raised by right hon. and learned Members who are of the legal profession and therefore able to raise much more profound and wide-ranging aspects with which we must deal.
I have some doubts about the Bill"s wording, and the Minister kindly helped with some of them. However, there are sufficient elements to it—such as those on retrospection, its wording and its relationship to the Access to Justice Act 1999, which it seeks to amend—to suggest that, once the Committee of Selection has done its work, members of the Standing Committee, especially if they are legally qualified and expert, might require considerably more time for scrutiny than the Minister seems to have believed up to this point would be necessary.
The motion states, very generously, that the Committee
shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet
In the good old days, Madam Deputy Speaker, which will be within your recollection, Committees always sat only once on the first day—and for very good reasons. Most conventions of the House have very good reasons behind them. It was to allow Committee members to acquaint themselves with what was happening and to give them time to consider the Bill"s contents, table amendments, and so on. Programme motions routinely state that the Committee will sit twice on its first day—the assumption being that it can do its work properly at an accelerated rate.
It is assumed, presumably, that in the morning of the first day, the Committee will nod through what the Programming Sub-Committee has deliberated on, and then go straight to work on the first afternoon. Such a timetable makes a series of important assumptions—not least that members of the Committee will have had time between Second Reading and the first sitting to think about the Bill"s contents and, more importantly, to listen to outside representation and table considered amendments for the Committee to debate. If we are not very careful, none of that will happen.
If, in the light of the fact that the House has just given the Bill its Second Reading, we work on the assumption that the Committee of Selection meets this Wednesday, the two days that the Minister has in mind for the Standing Committee to sit are Tuesday 6 March and Thursday 8 March. There will be two sittings on each day, but the length of those sittings is as yet unspecified—another detail that we do not know at this stage. We are told by the Government that the Committee will sit twice in one day, but we do not and cannot know how long each sitting will last, so we cannot make an informed judgment on how relevant and appropriate is the timing proposed in the motion. We are always working in the dark at this stage in our deliberations. We simply have to accept what the Minister says: "I, the Minister, decree that, in my judgment, because this is my Bill and because I, the Minister, say that it is a small, technical and uncontroversial measure and so should not need much work, the Committee will only have to sit on a certain number of occasions and I, the Minister, do not even know—or if I do know, I am not telling the House—how long it will sit on each day."
The Minister tells us that Committee stage must finish by Thursday 8 March—the day after the Budget. I mention that because it is not entirely unconnected with


the fact that if, as it is now widely speculated, we are to have a general election on 5 April, the House would have to be dissolved on that date, or a day or two later. That raises important questions about the next part of the motion, headed "Consideration and Third Reading". It is relevant to the debate to consider that the possible imminence of an election and the timing that will be required following Budget day raise serious questions about this part.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out in his intervention, to which the Minister was pathetically incapable of replying, the Government, not satisfied with decreeing the timing of the Standing Committee at this stage, are going on to prejudge the timing and duration of Report and Third Reading. The Government have the gall to say that they will allow until
six o"clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced".
Let us suppose that that day is like today, with three ministerial statements in the House. What will happen to consideration and Third Reading on that day? Let us suppose that the business of the House is fixed, as ever, on the preceding Thursday and the day set for those stages is a Monday; let us suppose further that developments occur in respect of foot and mouth disease or Iraq and the Government feel obliged to make one or more statements on that day. Will Report stage on the Bill disappear altogether, or will it be diminished to less than an hour, or to half an hour, or to a matter of minutes? Is that what the Government are telling us in setting and predetermining the time limit for consideration and Third Reading at 6 o"clock on a certain day? In giving a waffling and ill-considered answer to my right hon. and learned Friend, the Minister stated that he did not know which day it is to be. Nevertheless, whatever day is decided upon, we are being told in all seriousness that at 6 o"clock on that day the matter will be concluded.
The motion also provides that if the day chosen is a Thursday—a day on which we routinely bunk off at 7 o"clock without doing our proper work—we shall finish consideration at 4 o"clock in the afternoon. On Thursdays, we have Question Time from 11.30 to 12.30, followed by business questions, which usually run until about 1.15. There might be one or two statements on the set day—we do not know, and neither do the Government at this stage. It is entirely possible that consideration and Third Reading, having been decreed to finish at four o"clock in the afternoon, will be squeezed into less than two hours or, in some circumstances, only one hour, or, in extreme circumstances, no time at all.
It is perfectly obvious that the Government will have to give us a cast-iron guarantee that no statements will be made on the day in question, regardless of the circumstances—regardless of whether we have been invaded by the French, have to declare war that day, or any other event. All in all, the motion is even more draconian than the ones to which we have become accustomed and is therefore wholly unacceptable.
That is bad enough, but paragraphs 6 and 7 make matters materially worse. The Government are saying that there is to be no scope for reconsideration in the light of known circumstances—matters that have arisen in

Committee, amendments that have or have not been made in Committee, representations received, and so on. We heard on Second Reading that a considerable number of representations have already been made to Members of Parliament and that there is widespread concern in the legal profession and among those involved in court work about the implications of the Bill. We must assume that provision will have to be made for substantial outside representations to be made during the course of our consideration.
The motion would disapply the provisions of Sessional Orders A and B. Those orders were bad enough when they were introduced, but the Government now propose routinely not to bother any more with those new procedures, which were touted as being part of so-called modernisation, but which are already being swept aside, disregarded and disapplied by motions such as the one before us because the Government are in such a rush to complete their business and want less and less to give the House of Commons the scope to make its own decisions on how to conduct its business. Under the heading "Lords messages", Sessional Order A is disapplied and the time limits for dealing with those matters are to be predetermined—again, regardless of what might arise between this House and another place.
We can now see the sequence of events. The Government lay the programme motion before they have even heard the debate on Second Reading and so before they can gauge the level of interest in the House. They seek to predetermine when the Standing Committee will sit without even knowing the duration of each sitting, and they complicate matters further by allowing consideration and Third Reading to be jeopardised by the tightness of the provision made. I hope that my brief remarks have illustrated the nonsense of setting a time limit of 6 o"clock for the conclusion of proceedings on a certain day when we cannot possibly know what other business will be before the House on that day.
I have mentioned only statements, but leave to ask a private notice question may well be granted by the Speaker on the day set. Who knows? Any number of procedural possibilities could arise. On the previous day, the Speaker may well have granted an emergency debate. Such matters are unusual, but not unknown, and should certainly not be assumed to be an impossibility. Several procedural possibilities could arise so that, if one took the motion literally, the consideration and Third Reading could be squeezed out almost entirely.
Is that what the Government intend? It may well be that they have such arrogance and such contempt for the proceedings of the House that they do not care if we find ourselves diminished almost to nothing. As for the complex and delicate relationship between the House and another place, the Government seem to believe that we do not need to bother with it much; it can be brushed aside, everything can be rushed through, and that will be acceptable. All in all the motion may well be the worst example of a series of so-called programme motions which, of course, should be called guillotines, as that is what they are.
Is the Minister prepared to give us a much fuller explanation? He barely bothered to explain why the matter should be dealt with in this way. I will not labour a point I made on Second Reading, except to mention in passing that the entire Bill is in jeopardy, as it could well be overtaken by much larger events. That would be the


Government"s fault, and may be the result of incompetence or because they think that they can use the motion to blackmail Members by saying that people outside will not have proper legal representation unless the parliamentary process is accelerated to ensure that the Bill will receive Royal Assent according to a timetable which, ironically, will be dictated by the Prime Minister himself. That is the circular argument in which we are now engaged.
All in all, the motion is probably the most unsatisfactory programme or guillotine motion with which we have had to deal. Unless the Minister does an awful lot better to persuade me, I shall oppose this outrageous measure when I have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Hogg: This is a bad day for parliamentary democracy. There are two bad things about it: the motion, to which I shall speak at some length, and the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in which he made it plain that he resented coming to the House on Wednesday to debate foot and mouth disease, on the ground that he had better things to do.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the scope of this debate is very limited indeed. I ask him to confine his remarks to that.

Mr. Hogg: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I said that two bad things had happened today, and I am now coming to the second—the programme motion. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). You may know, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have had the misfortune to be in the Chair when I have addressed the House on previous programme or guillotine motions, that I have spoken against such motions, which I oppose on principle, six or seven times in the past two months.
I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would have been chary of introducing this programme motion in the House, as the Bill to which it applies makes good a defect in a previous Bill. If the earlier measure had been properly discussed at the time, it might not have resulted in the current Bill. I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would have been chary of asking the House to timetable a Bill, the object of which is to correct his own error. However, he has done so, and I am against that.
In his opening remarks, the Parliamentary Secretary said that four sittings in Committee were sufficient. Splendid, but whose business is it? It is not his business, but that of the Committee. I hope that the House finds it offensive that the Parliamentary Secretary—who has been in the House but a short time—comes here and says that four sittings are sufficient. That may be the advice of his officials, but the House and the Committee should determine how long they wish to spend on a Bill. That period will depend, at least partly, on amendments that are tabled by Members and representations that they receive from those outside the House. That will not be done properly, because the Parliamentary Secretary, from his short experience of political business, thinks that four sittings are enough. Indeed, he even suggested that two sittings may be enough, which raises the interesting

possibility that he could use his substantial majority on the Committee to ensure that the sittings are abbreviated; perhaps some of the tiresome and difficult things that Members of Parliament want to say to him would not be articulated.
One important aspect of the Committee stage is the fact that it enables Back-Bench Members to table amendments articulating the concerns and anxieties of constituents and interested bodies who write to them. The process of curtailing debate curtails the representation of grievances.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree it is highly likely that the volume and complexity of representations on the Bill will be unusually large because of the nature of the legal profession and the implications for court proceedings that the Bill undoubtedly will have? Does he agree that peculiarly in this instance outside representations will be of particular importance?

Mr. Hogg: Yes, I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is highly probable that outside representations will be both numerous and extensive. They will reflect also the fact that the legal profession throughout the country has lost confidence in the Government. The Lord Chancellor and the Under-Secretary have forfeited the confidence of much of the profession. Therefore, it will be examining the Bill with an extremely critical eye. I should be surprised if substantial amendments were not tabled at the suggestion of the profession.
My right hon. Friend has identified the problems that are associated with Report stage. On an ordinary calculation, we shall be lucky to have more than an hour to an hour and a half; we might have substantially less. If the Bill had come forward for Report today, for example, it would not have been debated. That is unsatisfactory.
Report provides the one opportunity for Members as a whole to consider the detail of a Bill and to table detailed amendments, and that is important for at least two reasons. First, the Bill might be improved by the tabling of amendments. Secondly, Members can articulate in the Chamber, before other Members who choose to attend, anxieties that reflect the concerns of their constituents.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that this is only the second time that a programme motion has been applied to consideration in Committee, on Third Reading and on Report. The first such motion concerned the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill. The Standing Order that was passed by the House on 7 November 2000 provides in paragraph (1)(b) that
an allocation of time to proceedings in committee on the bill"—
I move on to paragraph (7), shall—
add to the proceedings to which a programme order applies.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not far fetched to envisage a programme motion for Committee, Report and Third Reading, but one, given the way in which the Government are going—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman and anyone else who wishes to participate in the debate that we are confined to discussing the programme motion for the Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill.

Mr. Hogg: I shall deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I


was aware that this is the second programme motion to apply to consideration in Committee, on Third Reading and on Report, partly owing to the assiduousness of my hon. Friend. I deprecate the process, largely for the reasons advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. We cannot tell now how long will be required for consideration in Committee, on Report or on Third Reading.
As I have said, Report provides the opportunity for the House as a whole to address the detail of the Bill. The House will approach the Bill with the benefit of representations that have been made from outside. The idea that the House can either amend or intelligently discuss a Bill on Report for an hour or an hour and a half is preposterous—or in any event, we cannot say now whether it would be preposterous.
A further point is that we are undermining the basis of democracy, as I have said in previous debates. The country believes that legislation is properly scrutinised. That, at least in part, is why people are prepared to put up with laws, even bad laws. However, what happens when the truth is that a Bill is not scrutinised properly, or at all? The bargain into which people enter as part of a political commonwealth is being stripped away. Bills cannot be debated properly in an hour and a half. If they are not debated properly, where is the legitimacy of what we do? We are profoundly undermining the respect that people will have for the House, and therefore for the authority of Parliament.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My remarks are general, but they do apply to the timetable motion, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is not the motion an affront to democracy? No one knows what might be discussed in Committee or what amendments might be tabled. Until such amendments are tabled and discussed in Committee, no one knows how much time should be allocated for Report and Third Reading.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Why on earth should we limit the debate to one and a half hours, which will effectively be the time allowed? Why should the debate on Report be brought to a conclusion at 6 o"clock? Why should we suppose that there is other pressing business that day? It might be convenient for the House to discuss the Bill until the ordinary time, without any inconvenience to anyone. We are assuming that one and a half hours is appropriate, and that is that.
Very soon we will be deprived of timetable motion debates, because the Government are uncomfortable with such debates and will do away with them, as happened with money resolutions, or, worse still, there will be a five-minute debate. We have been degrading the process.
When I first entered the House many years ago, timetable motions were generally moved by the Leader of the House. When they were not moved by the Leader of the House, they were moved by the Leader"s deputy, or sometimes by the Minister at the head of the Department responsible for the Bill. Now, as a matter of course, the timetable motion is moved by the Parliamentary Secretary, who in this case manifestly had not read paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the motion.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the limitations of the debate. Will he please confine his remarks to the programme motion relating to the Bill?

Mr. Hogg: With respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was directing my remarks to paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the motion when you called me to order.
The point that I was making was that the Parliamentary Secretary, who presented the motion to the House, manifestly had not read paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, or if he had, he had not understood them. That is a lamentable state of affairs. It suggests a contempt for Parliament and the parliamentary process which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I believe to be wholly wrong.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will join me in the Division Lobby in saying no to the motion, and that we will go on doing so to motion after motion of this kind as it is laid before the House.

Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 255, Noes 47.

Division No. 129]
[8.43 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clapham, Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov"try NE)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)




Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Austin, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bailey, Adrian
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Banks, Tony
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ms Ann


Begg, Miss Anne
Cohen, Harry


Bell, Stuart, (Middlesbrough)
Coleman, Iain


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Colman, Tony


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cooper, Yvette


Benton, Joe
Corbett, Robin


Berry, Roger
Cousins, Jim


Best, Harold

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Betts, Clive
Cummings, John


Blackman, Liz
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Blizzard, Bob



Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cunningham, Jim (Cov"try S)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradshaw, Ben
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davidson, Ian


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Browne, Desmond
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Buck, Ms Karen
Dean, Mrs Janet


Burden, Richard
Denham, Rt Hon John


Burgon, Colin
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Doran, Frank


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Drew, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eagle, Maria (L"pool Garston)


Cann, Jamie
Efford, Clive


Casale, Roger
Fisher, Mark


Caton, Martin
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma


Chaytor, David
Flint, Caroline






Flynn, Paul
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foulkes, George
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Martlew, Eric


Gerrard, Neil
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Gibson, Dr Ian
Merron, Gillian


Godsiff, Roger
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Goggins, Paul
Michie, Bill (Shef"ld Heeley)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mitchell, Austin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Moffatt, Laura


Grocott, Bruce
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Grogan, John
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Morley, Elliot


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Hanson, David
(B'ham Yardley)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John


Healey, John
(Aberavon)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mudie, George


Hepburn, Stephen
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Heppell, John
Norris, Dan


Hill, Keith
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hoey, Kate
O'Neill, Martin


Hood, Jimmy
Pearson, Ian


Hope, Phil
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Plaskitt, James


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pollard, Kerry


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pond, Chris


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pope, Greg


Hurst, Alan
Pound, Stephen


Hutton, John
Powell, Sir Raymond


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Illsley, Eric
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jamieson, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Prosser, Gwyn


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Robertsor, John


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
(Glasgow Anniesland)


Joyce, Eric
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rogers, Allan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rooney, Terry


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kemp, Fraser
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Roy, Frank


Khabra, Piara S
Ruane, Chris


Kidney, David
Salter, Martin


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sarwar, Mohammad


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Sedgemore, Brian


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Shaw, Jonathan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Sheerman, Barry


Lammy, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Laxton, Bob
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Leslie, Christopher
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Levitt, Tom
Singh, Marsha


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Skinner, Dennis


Linton, Martin
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lock, David
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McAvoy, Thomas
Soley, Clive


McCabe, Steve
Southworth, Ms Helen


Macdonald, Calum
Spellar, John


McFall, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Steinberg Gerry


McIsaac, Shona
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Stinchcombe, Paul


MacShane, Denis
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mactaggart, Fiona
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


McWalter, Tony
Stringer, Graham


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mallaber, Judy
Sutcliffe, Gerry





Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
White, Brian


(Dewsbury)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wicks, Malcolm


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Timms, Stephen
(Swansea W)


Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Todd, Mark
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Trickett, Jon
Wills, Michael


Truswell, Paul
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Woodward, Shaun


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Woolas, Phil


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Worthington, Tony


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Tynan, Bill
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Vaz, Keith



Walley, Ms Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ward, Ms Claire
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. Don Touhig.




NOES


Amess, David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Bercow, John
Moore, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Moss, Malcolm


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Nicholls, Patrick


Brand, Dr Peter
Redwood, Rt Hon John



Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Robathan, Andrew


Burnett John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


(NE Fife)
St Aubyn, Nick


Collins, Tim
Sanders, Adrian


Cotter, Brian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd"ns)


Cran, James
Spicer, Sir Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Steen, Anthony


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Stunell, Andrew


Garnier, Edward
Swayne Desmond


Gray, James
Syms Robert


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tyler, Paul


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)



Kirkwood, Archy
Tellers for the Noes:


Letwin, Oliver
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
and


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Owen Paterson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [Lords]:

Standing Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.

3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 8th March.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at six o"clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at three o"clock on that day.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at seven o"clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at four o"clock on that day.

6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Lords messages

7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Community documents),

TRANSMISSIBLE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHIES

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5196/99, a draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules for the prevention and control of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, and a draft directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 91/68/EEC; and supports the Government"s objective of achieving Community-wide measures against transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, especially in the light of recent findings that BSE is more widespread in Europe than had previously been acknowledged.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

Line of Route

Mrs. Marion Roe: I beg to move,
That this House approves the First Report from the Administration Committee on the Trial Summer Re-opening of the Line of Route, HC 213. Session 2000–01.
I am conscious of the fact that this is becoming a habit. For the third time in less than two years, I am asking the House to approve proposals put forward by the Administration Committee on the reopening of the line of route during the summer Adjournment. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. Hon. Members should either settle down or leave the Chamber quickly and quietly.

Mrs. Roe: On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Visitor Manager, the Serjeant at Arms, the Director of Catering Services, the Director of Finance and Administration and their staff for all their efforts before, during and after last year"s reopening. I also thank the Leader of the House for making time available for this debate when I am sure that there are many other pressing demands on the time, in the Chamber. Finally, I thank my colleagues on the Committee and colleagues and officials in another place for their constructive advice and comments over the past two years.
At the outset, I want to address some of the erroneous articles that have recently appeared in the media. Anyone who has read our report would be able to confirm that nowhere do we say, or even imply, that visitors found the tours a bore or that the reopening was "financially disastrous". The articles seem to have been written mainly by taking selective extracts from one of the appendices and quoting them out of context.
The general tenor of the articles was that the trial reopening was a failure and did not achieve its targets, but it is misleading to talk of targets when, as summer 2000 was a trial, there were no precedents and it was not possible to forecast accurately what would happen. Surely that was why the House agreed to an experiment—to ascertain how popular the tours would be.
The oft-quoted figure of 55,980 visitors was but one estimate proposed in 1999, and it was based on a 41-day opening period. As the Committee says in the report, it was necessary to reduce that period to 35 days because the other place rose later than anticipated. Furthermore, the 1999 figure did not take into account the education unit"s autumn visits programme. Both those factors lowered the total number of visitors.
It is claimed that visitors "shunned"—another word we neither said nor implied—Parliament, as "only" 40,577 people took part in the tours. Far more significant is the fact that the final cost of the reopening was less than anticipated. The figures are set out in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the report. The crux is that the Committee advised the House to expect, a deficit of £232,000, whereas the final amount was in fact £209,611, so the cost to the House was £125,767, rather than the anticipated £138,000.
I want to comment on the reports stating that merchandising made a net loss of £15,000. That claim is, I regret to say, disingenuous as it ignores totally a later sentence saying:
This reported "loss" includes over £20,000 expenditure for staff costs which would have otherwise been borne by the House of Commons Refreshment Department and are not, therefore, an additional cost to the House.
I am sure that the House is as interested as the Committee was to note that those members of the public who took part in the tours last summer judged the tours and guides a considerable success, with 95 per cent. of visitors rating the tours as very good and more than 90 per cent. rating the guides as very good. The Visitor Manager has received 3,000 letters from members of the public urging the Houses of Parliament to continue the summer tours.
I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for suggesting that visitors be asked their views, as the results brought home to the Committee just how successful the experiment had been—indeed, it was so successful that I do not believe that we could justify not reopening the line of route this year.
As I know the House is keen that the parliamentary summer works programme should not be disrupted, I confirm that the major pre-planned programmes will not be impinged upon significantly by reopening the line of route this summer.
The results of the trial, together with the Committee"s comments and conclusions, are given in our report. It might therefore be more helpful if I simply set out how the House authorities intend to remedy the few deficiencies that have been identified
Perhaps the most crucial aspect is how the House authorities are to keep within last year"s budget of £232,000 while still improving the marketing of the line of route tours. As was the case last year, the cost of the reopening would be borne by the House"s reserve. The key to keeping this cost within last year"s budget is to double last year"s volume of visitors over an eight-week opening period—provisionally planned to be from Monday 6 August until Saturday 29 September.
I understand that the Visitor Manager is already at work on a business plan and that he is confident we can achieve the 85,000 visitors needed. But—and this is a big but—if we are to increase the number of visitors, we need to be in the market now. This is especially important as extra effort will be needed to attract visitors from overseas and from regions of the United Kingdom other than the south-east. As might be expected, the United States offers a great opportunity to attract overseas visitors and, as far as has been possible without having the agreement of the House yet, the Visitor Manager has been discussing the matter with the British Tourist Authority in north America, which considers that our optimism is well founded.
This year it is intended to introduce tours in languages other than English. Each day at 2.15 pm tours will be offered in French, German, Spanish and Italian, at no extra charge to visitors. The Committee will review the success, or otherwise, of these tours and may, in future years, consider the introduction of tours in other languages—for example, Japanese.
I turn now to the box office operation. This year it will not be necessary to book five days in advance. It is planned to sell about 400 tickets a day from a counter in Westminster Hall. Although we will be using Ticketmaster equipment, these direct sales to the public will not attract a booking fee. For pre-booked tickets which this year will be

available from all Ticketmaster"s 50 outlets in the United Kingdom, we will pay Ticketmaster a booking fee of 95p per ticket to cover the ticketing system"s costs and postage. That fee is unchanged from last year. It will not be necessary to have a credit card to purchase tickets. If potential visitors are unable to get to a Ticketmaster outlet, they will be able to buy tickets by post from the box office here.
I make no apology for again stressing that what the Committee is recommending would in no way affect existing arrangements. A summer reopening of the line of route would be an additional facility and an extra way for visitors to see the Palace of Westminster.
At paragraph 26 of the report, the Committee, after considering the route to be taken by visitors, said that Portcullis House should not, at this time, be added to the tour. We recommended, however, that the building"s public areas should be open, free of charge, during the annual London Open House weekend. The Committee is grateful that Mr. Speaker has endorsed that recommendation. I am pleased to advise the House that, in addition to existing access arrangements, members of the public will be able to visit Portcullis House on 22 and 23 September.
As the report notes, the other place has already agreed to a reopening in 2001. The House of Lords has given the proposal a green light, and it would be ironic if the House of Commons were to show it a red light. I hope that the House will approve the report, which is based on responses from visitors. The general public clearly welcomed the initiative, and there would be great disappointment among our constituents and visitors from overseas if the line of route were not to be reopened in August and September. The Visitor Manager has finalised agreements with the tour guides and with Ticketmaster. The advertising is ready, and a public relations statement has been prepared. The Ticketmaster computers are ready to be loaded. All that we need is the House"s approval.
As the report says, the Committee is not asking for the trial reopening to be made permanent as there is room for improvement on last year"s operation. For that reason, we are asking the House to extend the experiment for another year. Next year, it will fall to me or my successor once again to present the Committee"s findings to the House for a decision. Last year we made a good start, and the responses of visitors showed that they welcomed the summer reopening. I commend the report to the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I am grateful for the effort and thought put in by the Select Committee on Administration to a report which, if we agree to it, will allow the line of route to open again in the summer. The Committee took on board comments and ideas raised during the previous debate on the matter, and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) has discussed the visitor survey, an idea proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) which produced a wealth of helpful information. The Committee took on board the comments made in our previous debate and ensured that that survey took place.
The House should be grateful to everyone who worked hard to ensure that last summer"s experiment was a success. The Committee has acknowledged that there


were teething problems. Having identified such problems, the Committee has proposed solutions. The Committee recognised that the House could not be expected to approve a permanent reopening of the line of route while such problems existed and has rightly asked that the experiment be extended. I strongly believe that we should give the scheme another chance this summer.
I agree with what has been said about the need for better marketing. I am impressed by the thought already given and effort made in that respect. I was also impressed by the strong support shown by members of the public who undertook the tour and found it most valuable. I note that the Committee is not asking for an increase in funding—a rarity in this age of tight budgets.
This is a House matter and, rightly, is subject to a free vote. As has been pointed out, their lordships approved another trial during the forthcoming summer adjournment. Like the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I hope that colleagues in this place will approve the motion so that the Palace of Westminster will again be open to the public—to our constituents—this summer.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I certainly support the proposal made in the first report of the Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) that the experiment should be continued this summer. I agree in principle that as many people as possible should have access—controlled, of course—to the House of Commons, to see how Parliament is constructed and how we work. It is important that we continue to engage the interest of members of the public in the history of this building, which is so important in our nation"s life.
Regrettably, there is far too much cynicism about politics at present—especially about the work of the House. We can overcome that by encouraging members of the public to take an interest—to see and to hear more of what we do, if they are minded to do so; although I would not make that compulsory. The opportunity to do so during the summer months is to be valued. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Committee"s careful analysis of the experiment so far and on bringing the information to the House.
I want to pick out one or two points from the report. I note that paragraph 17, headed "Profile of Visitors", states:
One disappointing aspect of the tours was that they appeared to attract a very narrow visitor profile. United Kingdom residents accounted for 78 per cent of visitors—the majority of these coming from London and the South East.
As a Member representing a south-west constituency, I point out to my hon. Friend that, for a family, a trip to London—even for a weekend—is extremely expensive. That was clearly demonstrated by the lack of interest from people around the country in visiting that other attraction—of much less importance than this place—the dome. People thought twice about the cost of the rail fare. That is one of the realities of life that must be taken into account when we consider what our capital offers by way of visitor attractions.
I trust that my hon. Friend will take my remarks in the spirit in which they are meant when I say that I hope that we will not take the too politically correct route of trying

to manipulate visitors to visit the House of Commons. Although 78 per cent. of visitors are from the United Kingdom, it is important for the people of this country to see the Parliament to which they send their representatives. I am pleased that the proportion of home visitors is so much greater.

Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend refers to the proportion of visitors from London and the south-east. She will not have failed to notice the significant interest demonstrated by our friends from the United States. Does she agree that as regards improvements—even my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) accepted that there can be improvements—it is important to focus on merchandise that matches the interests of the visitors? For example, given that only £1,970 was raised from the sale of mini teddy bears, House of Lords version, does my hon. Friend agree that we would probably do better on profitability of merchandise if we could offer as an attraction to our American friends figurines of my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher?

Mrs. Browning: I shall deal with merchandise in a few moments. My hon. Friend"s suggestion had not occurred to me, but he will have noted that paragraph 17 refers to the fact that the visitor profile was made up of people
of white/European ethnic origin and defined as
ABC1
socio-economic category.

Mr. Eric Forth: What is wrong with that?

Mrs. Browning: I hasten to assure my right hon. Friend that there is nothing at all wrong with that, but as someone with a background in marketing, I would say that if people are to market merchandise, they first need to know the marketplace. That is easily identified by the socio-economic groupings. Given the point that my hon. Friend made a moment ago, the appropriateness of the merchandise for that particular category of visitor needs to be considered.
I was disappointed and astonished that the items—I am not sure whether they are china or porcelain—that carry the Pugin designs had not found favour. There are two possible reasons for that: either they are more highly priced, better quality items, or the importance of Pugin and examples of his work, especially the decorative work, are not pointed out properly by the visitor guides. It is astonishing that mugs bearing the portcullis emblem were the most popular souvenirs—not just any old portcullis mug, but the white ones with a gold portcullis emblem, whereas those with the green portcullis emblem did not find favour.
One has to test the, market, and last year"s line of route experiment provided a good opportunity to test the market and the way in which merchandise is sold to visitors, but I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne to consider carefully why the Pugin merchandise has not found favour. It is clearly of good quality, but perhaps its historic importance is not well appreciated by visitors. If Pugin"s importance to the House is not apparent after a tour of the House, I should be extremely concerned about the content of the tour. We all agree that people appear to be satisfied with the content of the tour, but perhaps she will consider that matter.
As for the House of Lords teddy bears, it could be that visitors were of an age-group profile that already had a teddy bear, so perhaps they are not the right sort of merchandise.
I hope that the House will take this in the spirit in which I say it, but I would not wish to have at home any china bearing the portcullis emblem, nor any other emblem of the House. I am fond of the House and respect it, but I should be afraid that if visitors came to my home and saw crockery bearing House of Commons insignia, it would be like being found at home with a British Rail cup and saucer in the cupboard—they would wonder how I had acquired it. Perhaps people in socio-economic group ABC1 might pause for a moment and wonder what the vicar"s wife would think if they handed round teacups bearing House of Commons insignia. Much market research remains to be done on the merchandise, but I do not want to be negative because the experiment has clearly been a success and I am sure that the appropriateness of the merchandise and any new range that hon. Members might suggest tonight will be properly market-tested before money is invested in it.
There is a more serious matter, which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne mentioned. I have no objection to Portcullis House, especially the rooms on the first floor, being made available to the public, but I am a little concerned that paragraph 26 states:
the House should encourage greater "casual" access to the building".
I have been a Member of Parliament for only nine years, but during those years there have been times when we may have been a little cavalier about the security of this building. Such concerns are no less now than when I was first elected. Although we all want to welcome visitors and allow them to see where we work, the word "casual" gives me cause for concern.
There was a time when most of the security focus was on terrorism from a particular source. There is a view—it is only a view—that that threat is somewhat diminished, but we face as much risk today of terrorism from unknown sources as we did in the past. Therefore, whether the House is in recess or not, I stress to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne that we should take seriously the issue of security. We should not take a casual approach to access at any time; it should be properly managed and controlled.

Mr. Forth: Like me, my hon. Friend has the privilege of having accommodation in Portcullis House, so the issue is perhaps closer to our hearts than to those of other Members. Does she not agree that it is one thing to allow or even encourage the public into the existing public area on the first floor of Portcullis House, but it is a different matter to allow them into what is now called the courtyard in the large atrium? That area provides direct unlimited access to 1 Parliament street and to other parts of the parliamentary estate. Should we not be very careful indeed about allowing further access given the peculiar nature of Portcullis House and its relationship with other parts of the estate?

Mrs. Browning: My right hon. Friend is right, and that is why I am very concerned about the use of the word "casual". Access is an important issue not only when the House is sitting. We work during recesses and some of us

are often here. We also have a duty to the staff and the people who work in the building during recesses; their security is as important as ours. I caution against taking too relaxed an attitude to the issue of access, because this building remains a major target for would-be terrorists.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. I hope that the visits to the line of route this summer will be successful. I am sure that they will in no way detract from the excellent service provided by the staff of the House, particularly those in the education unit, who do an excellent job throughout the year in taking our constituents and school parties around the building. They explain the history of our Parliament and our country, and the work that we do. I am fully in favour of opening the building to as many people as possible so that they can have access to that information and experience.
I conclude by referring to a constituent of mine who came to the parliamentary estate from Devon. Not many people visit the House as frequently as we do, and a trip to London is often a treat for people who live a long way away. When my constituent arrived in Westminster Hall, she ran her hands along the walls and said to me, "It"s just wonderful to be able to touch the history." When we whip through Westminster Hall and other parts of a building that we regard as the office, we sometimes take for granted the marvellous history that is represented by this place. I would like us to share that with as many people as possible and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne will continue to enable that to take place during the summer recess.

Caroline Flint: Tomorrow, I shall attend my first meeting of the Administration Committee as a newly appointed member, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on the report.
The price of £3.50 to visit the parliamentary estate and all that it has to offer must make it the best deal in town. The fact that the ticket price has been kept so low compared with what people have to pay elsewhere is to be commended. However, I am glad that the report recognises that the issues of marketing and distribution need to be addressed. My area of South Yorkshire is a fair distance from the House, and if people do not know what is on offer, they will not take the opportunity to visit it. Has the Committee considered advertising the fact that the parliamentary estate is open in the summer in the magazines of organisations such as English Heritage and the National Trust, which have many members? Other organisations with an interest in political history and heritage may also want to take that opportunity.
The report mentions the lack of toilet and refreshment facilities. A Conservative Member raised a point of order recently when all the toilets in Portcullis House broke down. My experience is that such problems are not confined to this place. When I attended a royal garden party some years ago I found that even in the gardens of Buckingham palace ladies were queuing round the block to use the toilet facilities. It is pretty much the same in every public venue. Bearing in mind the comments about security, in future, once arrangements in Portcullis House are more stable and the toilets work from one week to the next, perhaps we could think about using the refreshment facilities on the courtyard floor for visitors. At the end of their tour, they could leave the parliamentary estate through the tube station exit.
I wonder whether the Committee has thought about how we could market souvenirs better. When people come here, they may be weighed down with packages and feel that they do not want to buy anything, but they might buy something from the airport on their way home to remind them of their visit. Other specialist retail outlets might also have something to offer.

Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Lady realise that there is a danger in that approach? We must decide whether we want to turn the sale of souvenirs into a large-volume, high-profit operation, which has some attractions for me, I must admit. If I catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will say more about that. On the other hand, if we pursue that aim, we may sacrifice the exclusivity and prestige that we like to think the products have at the moment. On which side of the argument does the hon. Lady find herself?

Caroline Flint: I agree that we must be sensitive in dealing with the matter. Teddy bears and coasters are high-prestige products, but if we are to produce merchandise we must consider how we shall sell it because we do not want to end up with surplus stock. The matter can be handled with sensitivity and merchandise can be made tasteful so that we can ensure that people visiting the country have the opportunity to buy a memento of their visit to this place.

Mr. Bercow: That was a gloriously indeterminate answer, if I may say so. I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment to the Administration Committee, as a result of which I am sure she will display even greater gravitas in future than she has exhibited in the recent past. On the subject of good taste, does she agree that the sale, for example, of teddy bears is testimony to all that is cuddly and bland, while the sale of figurines of my heroine would prove that we were neither?

Caroline Flint: We must recognise that people have different desires in their choice of mementos. Figurines of many politicians, past and present, may be well received. I visited the American Senate and Congress, where one can buy a diverse display of such ornaments. There is something to be said for selling objects that appeal to children. I have certainly found that the teddy bears go down very well when I present them to local hospitals and charities for raffles. We must offer something for everyone. If we are to produce these objects, we may as well get a return on our money. We must consider different ways of ensuring that people find them accessible.
I generally welcome the fact that the palace is open to the public. I have no problem with the fact that a large number of the visitors are from the United Kingdom, but I hope that we can draw people from beyond London and the south-east. We must remove some of the mystique while allowing people to enjoy the history of the many centuries of democratic progress that the House reveals to all who visit it.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to contribute to the debate. I must apologise to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who chaired the

Committee; I had hoped to give her notice of my detailed questions in advance, but, like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I was preoccupied over the weekend with the foot-and-mouth epidemic, which was on the doorstep of my constituency. I have had time to consider the report only today.
I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on Portcullis House. The electorate are entitled to see as much of what they have paid for as it is possible to show them. It is a magnificent and distinguished building and I hope that we are eventually able to use it for tours. It would be helpful to make it the end point of a line of route tour of the buildings, as suggested. Assuming that the toilets are in operation, that would provide the public with refreshment facilities at the end of their visit. I adopt a more positive view than that taken by Committee members and other hon. Members.
One aspect of the Committee"s approach concerns me. The hon. Member for Broxbourne referred to the budget for last year"s trial opening and the planned deficit of £232,000. The report does not put the deficit in those terms. Paragraph 8 of the background to the report mentions the worst case scenario, which could lead to
a possible net annual operating deficit of £232,000".
If every worst-case scenario were treated as a budget, the Chancellor would be in big trouble. I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that those were not the terms on which the House gave approval. She will recall that the Committee"s first proposals were turned down because many of us were concerned about the approach to the basic figures that were set out. Even the modified scheme caused some anxieties.
I do not want to go into detail about the quality of the tour; I am sure that that can be improved. The report says that some guides did not know who Mr. Pugin was, which was a problem. I hope that their information will improve. However, we are used to a high standard of tours in the House because when our constituents visit, we, our staff or the Badge Messengers take them around, and the quality of the tour is very good. We might be unfairly criticising last summer"s guides, who were simply not up to that standard. Other criticisms may also be unfair. There were concerns that to get around efficiently and be out in an hour tool precedence over the quality of the material passed on to visitors.
However, I am more worried about the basic economics of the exercise. The hon. Lady will know from my contributions to both the previous debates that I have always been anxious about that. Although the report refers to the impact on the Parliamentary Works Directorate—she mentioned that tonight—we are not told what additional costs arose as a result of its overtime on Sundays. That cost is not in the financial breakdown. Incidentally, I find it intriguing that, although the Committee refers to the PWD throughout the report, there is no apparent reference to the summer opening programme as the SOP—perhaps that is a sop to the tender delicacy of our concerns.
The passage on the cost of reopening, which is critical to the report, is interesting. The total number of ticketed visitors was 40,577 at a nominal cost of £3.50 a ticket. By my calculation, that adds up to £142,019.50. We are told in the report that the income from ticket sales was £119,991, so there is a shortfall of £22,000-odd.
Some of the figure may he commission for agencies. If so, it is not stated in the report. Otherwise, if the shortfall is owing to the concession given to carers, to which the report does refer, 6,293 carers must have brought through visitors, which is probably an excessive estimate. It would be useful to know the precise reason for the discrepancy.
The report refers to the fact that the millennium exhibition was taking place at the, same time. It is extremely important that we do not base all our forecasts on the very special circumstances of last year. It is important to understand that the millennium exhibition was clearly an extra attraction. All the merchandising sales of £188,551 stated in the report have been credited to SOP, yet a fair proportion of those sales must have been generated by the exhibition. I notice, incidentally, that although the estimate for the average spend given to the House during our previous debate was £4, it is actually £3.41, which is a considerable difference. I hope, therefore, that we shall consider that matter again.
On the question of tour operations, which are referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3 on page 4, the booking of tickets was contracted out to Ticketmaster and the provision of guides to Tour Guides Ltd. There is no mention in the financial breakdown of the exact commission or of any fees paid. That means that the figures to which I have just referred are a little misleading. I hope that we can have some more information on that. I would certainly like to know what sort of contractual fees and commission were paid to those two private companies.
The SOP employed five co-ordinators to assist at the sovereign"s entrance. The financial breakdown shows that the cost of uniforms was £1,825. As far as I have been able to discover, that paid for sweaters or sweatshirts for five people, so those five sweatshirts must have cost £365 each. I guess they are gold-plated. Perhaps something else is included under the cost of uniforms. If so, it would be interesting to know exactly what.
According to paragraph 3 on page 10, two consultants were employed for a total of four days in order to brief the local media. They do not seem to have done a very good job. As the hon. Member for Don Valley said, we do not seem to have received all that much press coverage for what I would have thought was intrinsically an extremely interesting story. Therefore I am not sure how well they did their job. Given that the manager and assistant manager were paid £54,000, surely they could have undertaken the task. I should have thought that the Visitor Manager would have been just as good a person to undertake such a responsibility. Again, it would be helpful to see a breakdown of the costs.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has just made an important point about what appears to have been a deficiency of service. Have I misunderstood him or is his interpretation that the public relations service was not subject to market testing or competitive tender?

Mr. Tyler: I cannot advise the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the hon. Member for Broxbourne will answer that question when she responds to the debate. The answer is not apparent from my reading of the report but, as I said, I have had an opportunity to read it only at speed as a result of other preoccupations.
I have several other questions relating to issues arising from the figures. The figure for admissions, for example, which is given under revenues, is clearly for ticket sales.
Therefore, we do not know precisely what arises from that figure, under which heading guides are paid for and how any future trial will operate other than at a loss.
There is a figure for entertainment of £1,074. Entertainment, as we all know, always causes some difficulty. Given the wonderful value of refreshments in the House, it is not immediately clear where the entertainment was provided, to whom and by whom. I assume that it was a responsibility of the Visitor Manager.
An important point that may apply to both of those previous items is that any enterprise of this sort incurs set-up costs. Are they to spread only over the first season, across the whole year, or across future years? How many of those costs are recurrent? That, too, is not spelt out in the report, which makes it more difficult for us, in our traditional scrutiny role, to be sure exactly what is going on. For example, are the merchandising overheads of £59,587 and the development costs of £18,204 recurrent costs, or once-and-for-all set-up costs? It is not immediately clear.
Looking ahead to the trial"s continuation, the most important point to note is that overall operating loss of the trial was £209,611, or a loss of almost £6,000 for every day that the line of route was open. The total of 40,577 visitors means that there was a subsidy of £5.17 for every single visitor. That is quite a considerable sum. Given that, at other times of the year, Members" tours—tours undertaken by Members of Parliament, or by our staff, or on our behalf—attract no subsidy, we see that we are dealing with a curious upside-down world. The loss quoted for the operation of tours is £176,263. I cannot see how those expenses—or costs, whichever way one wants to see them—can be so reduced in future years, or that the House will want to approve a loss of £6,000 for each week that the line of route is opened on that basis.
The overriding issue, which I have raised on previous occasions and I raise again tonight, is simply that, both last year and this, we open the line of route for a comparatively short time during the trial period. Surely that means that we should establish a short-term, limited and carefully controlled budget for that period. Instead, we appear to have set up a permanent institution, with a Visitor Manager and an assistant who are present 52 weeks a year. Instead of finding a way in which to cater for a comparatively short-term operation, with short-term costs, we appear to have engaged in long-term costs.
Having said all that, I believe that the Committee was right to experiment and I consider its request to experiment once again to be reasonable. However, I ask that the costs be scrutinised extremely carefully. Answers must be given to some of the specific points that I have raised this evening, if not now, on a future occasion or in correspondence. I am by no means convinced that the experience of the House, and of the Committee on our behalf, fully justifies a permanent experiment.

Mr. Eric Forth: While following the spirit and thrust of the comments made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), I wonder whether we should ask even more fundamental questions. Neither the report nor our previous debates has made it clear whether the House expects the line of route to be a subsidised cultural experience for visitors, or a regular contributor to ease the burden on the taxpayer of the costs of parliamentary activity. The answer could be one or the other, or something in between.
Whether we should be shocked or pleased that each visitor is subsidised to the tune of £5 is an important and open question. If the idea was to draw in people from beyond the United Kingdom and, in effect, pay them to come through and marvel at the Palace of Westminster, that is one thing; if that was the aim, we have been moderately successful. However, if we expected the exercise to contribute to the real revenues of the Palace of Westminster and ease the burden on the taxpayer, it has been a miserable failure. Judging that properly will depend on where we start and what we set as our objective. That is not at all clear from the report, so it is difficult to judge whether the trial was a success.
Against that background, a much more fundamental set of questions should be asked about the accounting procedures that were used. When presenting figures on activities at both ends of the Palace of Westminster, we have never been clear about how we should account for those activities. In other words, should we charge a notional rent for space occupied? It is one thing to talk about a kiosk, sales outlet or even a line of route, but it would quite another if we factored in rental charges for the space occupied at central London rates. However, we assume that that is a free good. Few businesses have the privilege of a rent-free operation, especially in this location.
As for staffing, do we charge the full cost of staff to a particular operation, or do we absorb it into the general operation? For example, staff from the Refreshment Department would be here anyway, so we need not attribute an element of their cost to the activity that is being undertaken. Again, the presentation of such matters in the report does not make clear either the real costs or how we want to identify and attribute those costs to different operations in order to make a proper judgment about whether a certain element is profitable or extraordinarily expensive.
That is bad enough, but appendix 1 on page 28 of the report deals with the "pessimistic case" target, the adjusted target—to take account of reduced opening—and actual figures. If we are not careful, we will get into millennium dome territory: someone has made projections of what they think will happen but, lo and behold, it does not quite work out that way. In fact, when one looks at the figures, it is clear that it does not work out that way at all. There seems to be a shortfall in almost every regard.
One may seek to explain or excuse that shortfall by saying that last year was an experimental first year, that we were feeling our way and that we are not at all sure yet. At the very least, I hope that close attention will be paid to the figures and the targets. If there was a pessimistic case target, what on earth was the optimistic case target? If there was a shortfall of such a magnitude on the pessimistic case target, there is a serious question mark over the targeting process, on the one hand, and what went wrong with the actual figures, on the other.
Also on page 28 is an astonishing figure giving the average spend per visitor as £1.17, which includes VAT but excludes guidebooks. The average spend per transaction was £9.21. I should have thought that that indicated a distinct lack of success in persuading people who have visited the Palace of Westminster and paid the entrance fee, which they thought was all too reasonable—
I will comment on that in a moment—to buy a souvenir of their visit, at least to any significant extent. We shall obviously have to consider that.
To reiterate the intervention that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) kindly allowed me to make, we must reconsider carefully whether merchandise from this place is, as we would hope, of intrinsic value and rarity, can be purchased only here, and is therefore a genuine souvenir of a visit to the Palace or Westminster, or whether we should market it freely at airports, saying, "You might have gone to the Palace of Westminster. Grab a handful of souvenirs at the airport, whether or not you were at Westminster and take them home to whatever part of the world you come from." An important decision has to be made as to what we want to say about merchandise that is sold here.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend has set out for the House a key consideration. On this occasion, uncommonly for him, he has not specified his preference. Does he not agree that, even though we joust with each other as enthusiastic advocates of free market capitalism, having souvenirs of the House sold in the airports of the United Kingdom would be unspeakably vulgar?

Mr. Forth: As my hon. Friend challenges me to state my view, I should say that my preference would be for a degree of exclusivity and rarity to be attached to our merchandise. I haunt Capitol hill and Congress when I am in Washington, DC, as the hon. Member for Don Valley obviously does. I have bought the odd souvenir, but I would be rather shocked if on my exit from Dulles international airport or JFK I found a large stall with congressional souvenirs being pushed at me, no doubt at concessionary rates. That would somewhat alter my view of the undoubted magnificence of Congress and its history.
It is gratifying to be told that the results of surveys show that the overwhelming bulk of people thought that they had had a good deal when paying the charge to take a tour through the Palace of Westminster. That raises the obvious question whether a sufficient price is being charged. I was slightly disappointed by a recommendation that the price should be kept fixed. Following the entreaties of my hon Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), a market approach would suggest that if a large proportion of people thought they had enjoyed a bargain with a charge of £3.50, we could perhaps be more adventurous and ascertain whether we could charge more and reduce the deficit.
We are asking taxpayers generally throughout the country to subsidise those people who are fortunate enough to visit the Palace of Westminster, and perhaps that is getting things the wrong way round. It might be more satisfactory to expect those who visit the Palace—they do so voluntarily, enjoy the occasion and pay the charge—to help out the benighted taxpayer, who otherwise will be paying an ever-increasing amount to subsidise what goes on in this place, either directly in a political sense in the Chamber or Committee Rooms, or in terms of tourism That is my main criticism of the approach that has been taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and her Committee might want to give the matter serious thought, alongside the extension of the experiment. I am


glad that there will be a further year of experiment and that we are not yet ready to rush into a permanent arrangement. I hope that the Committee will give serious thought to whether there should be a subsidised cultural experience provided by the taxpayer to the visitor, or vice versa.

Mrs. Roe: This has been an interesting debate. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their views and comments, and I shall respond briefly. I thank the Minister for his supportive remarks, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). Members of the Committee are most grateful for their comments and support.
Much work went on behind the scenes by both Members and staff to try to ensure that the reopening was a success. The comments of the Minister and my hon. Friend will be welcomed by all those involved. I should be grateful if the Minister would pass on my thanks to the Leader of the House, who has been most helpful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton talked about how we could overcome cynicism about the House. I understand her points, and I hope that the reopening of the line of route will play a part in removing some of the misunderstanding about what is done by this place and the other place and the work that is undertaken by Members and others.
Mention has been made of the narrow visitor profile, given that trips to London are expensive. I understand that. However, I hope that marketing will draw to the attention of those who come to London—and many do—that there is an opportunity to see the Houses of Parliament. I have in mind especially those who come with young children. There is an opportunity to see what our democracy is about and to understand our traditions and the importance of this historic building.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned merchandising. I remind him that the merchandising remit is not part of my—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day"s sitting, the Motion relating to the Line of Route may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed.

Mrs. Roe: Merchandising is the responsibility of the Catering Committee, and I am certain that the Director of Catering Services will take into account the points made by my hon. Friend and others about the type of products that should be available and what sells to which particular market, as well as promoting Pugin and the role that he played in the design of this magnificent building. That should be mentioned by guides in their talks to the groups that they take around.
On casual access to Portcullis House, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton thought that that was too cavalier. I can assure her that the security will not be cavalier. The matter was dealt with meticulously during the reopening of the line of route. We take proper advice and all those involved have done an excellent job.
It is suggested not that there should be unrestricted access, but that access should be widened as far as is practical. I remind my hon. Friend that the general public are allowed into parts of Portcullis House to watch the activities of Standing Committees and Select Committees. I am sure that the House would want to encourage that, but we must be mindful of the security element.

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pointed out that access to the atrium in Portcullis House gives direct access to other parliamentary buildings, other than through the normal security procedures. Although the first floor of Portcullis House is quite a secure unit, the atrium is not a secure area suitable for unlimited access. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that into account.

Mrs. Roe: I have noted what my hon. Friend says. I believe that there is at present no direct access to the courtyard for members of the public, for the reasons stated by her. I assure her and the House that the matter is taken extremely seriously, with an eye to terrorism both in the past and in the future. Experience suggests that the matter was dealt with in a constructive and positive way during the reopening last summer.
I look forward to welcoming the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) as a new member of the Administration Committee tomorrow. I am sure that she will enjoy the work that we do, and that she will be an active member of the Committee. No doubt the Visitor Manager will take on board the hon. Lady"s constructive comments about advertising with heritage organisations. I agree that it is important that as many members of the general public as possible are made aware of the opportunities to visit this special place. The report noted that there had been problems with the toilet facilities, and we hope to remedy the problems of access, which were the subject of complaints.
Souvenirs are not a matter for my Committee, but I will draw the comments that have been made to the attention of the Committee which has that responsibility. I have noted the other points made by the hon. Member for Don Valley about Portcullis House, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham about the teddy bears and other items that were on sale.
I now come to the remarks made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), especially on the budget and paragraph 8 of the report. I accept his concerns; the worst-case scenario is not presented as a budget. The House authorities will realise that the issue is important and we will have to keep below the specified amount. The hon. Gentleman asked about the extra costs involved in the need for the Parliamentary Works Directorate to work at weekends. I understand that an additional cost of £10,000 was incurred because work had to be done on Sundays rather than on days when the tours were occurring. Although one must never discount any figure within a budget, that cost was not astronomical.
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman did not expect full answers today to his very detailed questions on financing. I shall of course ensure that he receives a reply as quickly as possible. I can tell him that the merchandising costs to which he referred are for the


equipment and the shop in Westminster Hall. I understand that those are one-off costs. The entertainment that he mentioned related to two receptions—one to welcome the guides and one for the media. The Refreshment Department provided the refreshments, so I am pleased to say that the cost was recycled within the House.
I think that I have covered all the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in my responses to other colleagues. However, if there is any other detail that he would like me to provide with regard to financing, I should be happy to do so. It is extremely important for this debate to be open, for all the figures to be available and for everybody to know exactly what is being done.
I have welcomed this opportunity to put before the House the success of the reopening of the line of route. I hope that it will endorse the Committee"s recommendation without a Division. If hon. Members are unsure about whether we should have another trial, they should ask a fundamental question: do we listen to the sections of the media that have chosen to represent last year"s reopening as a failure, or to our constituents, who have written in their thousands to say how much they have enjoyed the tours and to urge us to continue them? I am sure that this House will know to which group my Committee has been listening, so I hope that our recommendations will be endorsed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the First Report from the Administration Committee on the Trial Summer Re-opening of the Line of Route, HC 213, Session 2000–01.

LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)

Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:

Line 31, at end add—
() The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.
() The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
() The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.".—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act a additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 40, before the word "European" insert the words "Environmental Audit Committee or with the".
Line 50, before he word "European" insert the words "Environmental Audit Committee or with the".
Line 52, at the end insert the words:—
(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two."—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Hon. Members: Object.

LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

Motion made,

That—
(1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01 (HC 47); and
(2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word "Wales," the words "and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees".—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Cemeteries and Crematoriums

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Mr. David Amess: We politicians might think that we are immortal, but we are certainly not. In my time as a serving Member of the House, a number of colleagues have died. It was an extraordinary experience to serve on a Committee considering rate-capping legislation whose passage took an extremely long time, as two hon. Members died during our proceedings. Before I became a Member of Parliament, a Minister died at the Dispatch Box. Last year, an hon. Member was killed in a fire. Hon. Members have committed suicide and an hon. Member was assassinated. We are not immortal. Hon. Members, like everyone else, can be certain only of the fact that they will die.
Members of Parliament attend the funerals of friends and relatives all the time. A constituent recently observed that I had become a professional mourner. Perhaps that is because many senior citizens live in the area that I represent, and they are prone to die, especially in winter. For many years, I was an altar server and I have therefore attended numerous funerals.
Some people can be hard about such matters. Their view is: we die and that is the end it; what awaits us is a bit scary, but does what happens to the body really matter? I believe that it does. Some people make their own funeral arrangements, but the majority do not. Those who are left behind to dispose of the bodies of their loved ones may suffer trauma and depend on others for good, fair and reasonable advice. Not everyone has relatives, and it is left to the state or the hospital in which they died to make the arrangements.
There is increasing pressure for cremation. We could argue the merits of cremation against those of burial, but an impression is given that there is a shortage of space and that we should consider cremation because we cannot all be buried. I do not want to exaggerate it, but there is a tendency to recommend cremation I am worried about that. I hope that the people who prevent options to those who are grieving do so fairly.
I obtained a fascinating document called "Good Funerals", a background paper that was prepared on behalf of the ecumenical Churches group on funeral services at cemeteries and crematoriums. It covers good practice. I do not expect the Minister to be able to respond to all my points, but I should be delighted if he could deal with some, and perhaps write to me. What is the Government"s position on the conduct of cremations? I do not want to name crematoriums, but in some, the process is a little hard-hearted. No sooner has one funeral party arrived than the next group of mourners is waiting to come in. The process appears to be conducted in conveyor-belt fashion. Someone presses the button, the organ plays—when there is no organist, a tape of music can be played—a hymn may be sung, the vicar will do his best to say something and suddenly one is outside looking at the flowers and that is the end.
Perhaps many people want that sort of funeral, but I am not convinced. People may be satisfied with it at the time because no one wants to go to funerals. I attended a friend"s funeral, which appeared in the news. He was a

teacher who, sadly, committed suicide. That funeral was traumatic for the huge number of mourners from Lewisham and Newham. Mourning is tough, but funerals should be conducted with the greatest possible dignity. That is why I am worried about the industrial side of the process.
What are the Government"s views on the financial support that can be provided? The Government whom I supported introduced grants for such events; we could argue about whether they covered the costs. What is the Government"s view on those who have no one to dispose of their body? How does the state deal with their wishes, especially if they are cremated? What happens to their ashes?
The Oddfellows survey of funeral costs in Britain tells us that last year, the average burial cost £2,040 and the average cremation cost £1,250. In the past two years, the cost of burials has gone up by 25 per cent. and the cost of cremations by 12 per cent. That is a lot of money. I know that it has to come from somewhere, and I wonder whether the Government have any views on that matter.
On the disposal of ashes, a person will often come to an arrangement with a cemetery to have ashes interred and to have a rose that they will pay to have maintained for 10 years. Then that person dies, and there is no one to carry on the payments. What happens to those ashes? Are they dug up? Are they used for a further garden? Do the Government have a view on how such circumstances should be dealt with?
Some hon. Members may smile, but when I prepare to meet my maker, I wish to be buried. Possibly the only thing for which I shall be remembered will be my smiling face in 1992—that may have been a horror for some people but for one or two it will perhaps have been my only contribution to national life. I think my Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988 and my Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 are also worthy of note. It is my own individual choice to be buried, as it is the individual choice of many other people, who have firm views on how a burial should be conducted and, in particular, how a grave should be adorned with a monument. The Minister has been a Member of Parliament as long as I have, and we have all had letters from constituents about the rules and regulations about the size of monuments, the wording on tombstones and whether one can have kerbs. There is also a debate as to how the regulations apply in a churchyard or local authority graveyard. If one is very upset, those are difficult issues with which to deal.
I am delighted that the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs is undertaking to produce a report on the state of our cemeteries. One of my colleagues said to me recently that they had inadvertently visited my father"s grave in West Ham cemetery, and that it was in good order. I certainly pay tribute to the way in which that cemetery is kept. However, I wonder whether the Government intend to give further guidance on the rules and regulations on how people can mark the loss of their loved ones.
In my family, we have had a long argument about kerbstones. In a particular part of the cemetery, there is a plan to remove the kerbstones because it is hoped that the whole area will eventually be grassed over. That is crazy, because it is a very old part of the cemetery and there are some very large monuments either side of the area.


How on earth is someone going to be able to clip the grass when it eventually grows? I take the view that if people are keeping a grave well, there should be some flexibility in these matters.
In the years that I have spent in the House, I have received a number of complaints from constituents. I am not knocking London Members or London boroughs, but those boroughs tend to have the biggest cemeteries and constituents have turned up in a London cemetery to find that the grave that they wished to visit has disappeared. We can all think of incidents over the years of cemeteries having been sold or not having been properly maintained, and I regret all that. What is the Government"s view on that issue?
In a recent case in my constituency, a widow wanted her late husband to be buried in the military part of a cemetery. That was fine—they believed in burials—but she herself could not have been buried there, although she could have been cremated and had her ashes interred in the grave. She did not want that, so her husband was not buried in the military area. That seems crazy.
A constituent recently wrote to me about my local council"s charge of £126 for permission to erect a headstone. I understand that other Essex authorities charge between £35 and £65. My constituent said that the authority only charges £95 for permission to erect a garage, and that two site visits are included in that fee. With the ever-increasing cost of a basic funeral, why is VAT on gravestones not zero-rated? I know that funds are limited, and that the situation has always been the same, but might the Government consider that? How much VAT revenue do they receive from that source?
People have asked me whether we might consider the Italian practice of interment in walls. I do not know whether that is a possibility.
Last year, I attended my first green funeral. One of our parish councillors died, and when I heard that she was to be buried in a cardboard box, I thought that it could not be true, but when a large gathering turned up at the funeral, we found that it was indeed so. The funeral was conducted with great dignity. The body was interred and will eventually form part of a woodland, which is something that some people like.
It is most unfortunate that, in my area, there is a rubbish tip right beside the very old Jewish cemetery. That is horrendous planning. One would have thought that someone, somewhere, would have said that that was not a good idea—but there we are, these things happen.
Recently, someone from Devon who does family research wrote to praise my local cemetery in Sutton road. He said how very helpful all the staff and local authority officers were and how they had welcomed him with a smile as he looked up the details of the people whom he was trying to trace.
Since this debate was announced, many people have contacted me about the lack of space and increasing land values. The Treasury is to publish the second consultative document on the security of pre-plan payments. The National Association of Funeral Directors is very interested in that. The funeral directors have pointed out a ramification of the working time directive about which I had no idea: burials may have to be early in the day to escape greater charges, especially between October and March.
There is disquiet among stonemasons about local authorities selling stones directly. One can see their point.
There are apparently European Union laws trying to ban the burial of embalmed bodies in green sites. The EU directive on embalming chemicals apparently means that since last May there has been a need to register, which costs between £20,000 and £40,000. I am advised that a monopoly could result, as many small companies cannot afford that. The Government rightly say that mercury emissions must be reduced, but the embalmers association tells me—I cannot believe it—that that might lead to mercury dental fillings being removed before cremation. New cremation equipment is more expensive. Difficulties will arise with regard to listed buildings with cremation equipment—about 50 per cent. of these listed buildings have cremation equipment.
I have been told by embalmers and staff at cemeteries and crematoriums that they would welcome more consultation by the Government prior to the issue of guidance notes and ensuing legislation. However, I am sure that the Government do their best to involve people, and there are always two sides to a story.
We all want to give our loved ones a good send-off, and everyone has a different idea of what that is. I am a Catholic; one is brought into the church the night before the funeral and then it is a straightforward matter. I understand that sometimes the liaison between the local vicars and funeral directors is not great, with vicars being told that they have only 20 minutes in which to carry out the service in crematoriums and are allowed only one or two hymns.
On the basis that we will all die and that there will, we hope, be someone to mourn us, I hope that the Government will do all they can to underpin what is already being done to support those who are left behind to mourn the passing of their loved ones.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has raised an important issue tonight. It is coming to the fore increasingly, as a result of a number of matters, some of which the hon. Gentleman addressed in the course of his interesting speech. The debate is particularly timely in the light of the decision of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs to carry out its own investigation. The amount of interest that the topic has generated, in terms of the correspondence described by the hon. Gentleman, is an indication of how important it is for the House and the Government to deal with it.
Government responsibility for cemeteries and crematoriums in England is shared. The Home Office is responsible for burial and cremation law, including the disturbance of buried human remains, while the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has responsibility for most burial and cremation authorities, because most of them are also local authorities. Policy on land use, regeneration and environmental protection—issues which are relevant to how we plan and use cemeteries and crematoriums—is also within the Department"s portfolio. It is a shared responsibility, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and I take very seriously. Indeed, we recently gave joint evidence to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee.
The Home Office has long been responsible for cremation law and for the law on the exhumation or removal of human remains. Since 1995, we have also assumed responsibility for remaining burial legislation. This is an unwieldy, arcane and out-of-date body of law that is ripe for reform. That is why I particularly welcome this debate and the public discussion that is taking place on these issues.
Burial and cremation facilities are provided not by central Government but by local organisations in response to local demand. There are no special dispensations for cemeteries or crematoriums, and new facilities are subject to planning and other relevant law in the usual way, mainly to compete with other demands on land utilisation. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to some of the difficulties that arise. The market is relevant here, as is pressure on land and the utilisation of land for a variety of purposes.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman"s description of the unfortunate juxtaposition of a cemetery and a rubbish dump. It is unfortunate—local authorities and those responsible for planning need to treat these matters with sensitivity and care. In the main, that does happen.
Public policy in relation to cemeteries and crematoriums is that provision is a matter for local and commercial decisions in the light of demand. Regulation is designed primarily to uphold the public interest in the decent disposal of the dead, to ensure that proper records are kept and preserved, to avoid public nuisance and to protect buried remains from unnecessary disturbance. Municipal cemeteries are regulated to ensure uniform provision of the grant of burial rights and consistent arrangements for the maintenance of graves and memorials.
Crematoriums and cemeteries are subject to environmental protection regulations—the hon. Gentleman mentioned mercury in that regard—while crematoriums need additional regulation in order to deter any attempt to dispose permanently of evidence of crime. Undoubtedly, issues of choice and taste should be taken into account. People should have a choice and should have their tastes respected. Graves and memorials should be maintained in circumstances that uphold the dignity of the purpose for which they were designed and built.
Day-to-day management of burial grounds, which can be a cause of conflict, is very much a matter for the operator concerned, whether public or private. It is for the burial authority to determine how its grounds should be laid out, what maintenance regime to adopt and what range of services to provide. There will be differences, and some provision falls below an acceptable standard. The setting of fees, opening hours and days for burial or cremation services are also matters for local management. One cannot imagine circumstances in which such matters should be centrally controlled. What is certainly the responsibility of central Government is the creation of a framework within which local decisions can be made in the context of dignity, choice and the seemliness of arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman approached the subject of death in a refreshing and matter-of-fact manner—in fact, in almost an in-your-face way, if I may say so. Death is one of the last taboos in our society. We take a different approach to death than that of our Victorian predecessors, who would

have had no difficulty with the notion of jewellery or confectionery being prepared and warmed for the purpose of commemorating a death. We do not do that in our culture today, although we should recognise that there are different methods in the diverse and plural society in which we live.
In my constituency, the Irish and Caribbean ways of dealing with death are much more in tune with what our Victorian ancestors would have recognised. They would have recognised the importance of a wake, and of lying-in and visits to the house. I recently attended the wake of a much loved local councillor. People visited the house and Ann John, the partner of the deceased, over a period of days. People were able to reflect on the life of the deceased, sharing happy times and sad times with Ann, who now leads my local authority. That was how she wanted it, and we all respected it. It was entirely fitting and appropriate. Others choose to do it differently.
We have to ensure that there is proper accountability and a degree of transparency. People should know where to take their concerns about services—whether provided by the council or the company. For municipal undertakings, a local government ombudsman offers a further avenue for complaints—and rightly so.
The Home Office has statutory powers to inspect cemeteries and crematoriums. In cases of serious allegations of irregularities, or when there are suggestions that a site should be closed, an inspection will be carried out and a report made. That will help us to decide what action we should take, although our powers offer only a limited choice. We do not have the powers which, it is sometimes believed exist in such cases.
I want to make a few comments about the environment. Cemeteries offer more than just a place of burial of or memorial for the dead. They can have architectural or historical significance; for example, the Kensal Rise cemetery in my constituency has catacombs of recognised importance.
We also realise that cemeteries and burial grounds can contribute to the sum of green open spaces in urban areas, providing a peaceful oasis for quiet recreation and contemplation. They may also provide valuable habitats for trees and other flora and an important haven for wildlife. The development of the green funerals described by the hon. Gentleman makes an environmental contribution and is also important in offering choice.
Those arrangements—a mixed economy and local decision taking—have, on the whole, worked well. However, contrary to the tenor of some of the hon. Gentleman"s remarks, demand for cremation seems to have levelled off, at about 70 per cent. of all deaths. Many of the cemeteries opened in the past 100 years are coming to the end of their useful life. That creates its own pressures: pressure on land space for the living puts pressure on land space for the dead.
The past few years have seen a number of important developments. Certain problems have come to the fore. There is a shortage of land for burial in London and elsewhere. The condition of some cemeteries and churchyards has deteriorated owing to lack of maintenance. Some old cemeteries are of doubtful viability. There are challenges of principle and practice regarding the removal of human remains to enable the development of old burial grounds. Regulation is inconsistent and there are variable standards of practice and management.
The case for change is made. It is important that there should be a wider public debate to address issues such as the lack of burial space, a review of burial law and the lack of direction for the burial industry. The decision of the Environment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs to examine those matters was helpful. Last month, I gave evidence to the Sub-Committee. Whatever recommendations the Sub-Committee may make, our aims must be to ensure that the public have a realistic and affordable choice; that the services provided by burial and

cremation authorities are professional, caring, timely and sensitive to the needs of the whole diverse range of communities in our country; and that local burial and cremation facilities offer a fitting environment for the bereaved and enhance the life of the community.
Those are just some of the challenges. We need to make sure that the public have confidence in the way that their cemeteries and crematoriums are managed—

The motion having been made after Ten o"clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o"clock.